Testing Cataclysm
This content is not available in your language yet.
When you make
Cataclysm from source, an executable tests/cata_test
is built from test cases
found in the tests/
directory. These tests are written in the
Catch2 framework.
Run tests/cata_test --help
to see the available command-line options, and/or consult the
Catch2 tutorial for a more
thorough introduction.
Guidelines
When creating tests, ensure that all objects used (directly or indirectly) are fully reset before testing. Several tests have been rendered flaky by properties of randomly generated objects or interactions between tests via global objects (often the player object). As a general guideline, test cases should be standalone (one test should not rely on the output of another).
When generating objects with json definitions, use REQUIRE statements to assert the properties of the objects that the test needs. This protects the test from shifting json definitions by making it apparent what about the object changed to cause the test to break.
Writing test cases
You can choose several ways to organize and express your tests, but the basic unit is a TEST_CASE
.
Each test .cpp
file should define at least one test case, with a name, and optional (but strongly
encouraged) list of tags:
TEST_CASE( "sweet junk food", "[food][junk][sweet]" )
{
// ...
}
Within the TEST_CASE
, the Catch2 framework allows a number of different macros for logically
grouping related parts of the test together. One approach that encourages a high level of
readability is the BDD
(behavior-driven-development) style using GIVEN
, WHEN
, and THEN
sections. Here’s an outline of
what a test might look like using those:
TEST_CASE( "sweet junk food", "[food][junk][sweet]" )
{
GIVEN( "character has a sweet tooth" ) {
WHEN( "they eat some junk food" ) {
THEN( "they get a morale bonus from its sweetness" ) {
}
}
}
}
Thinking in these terms may help you understand the logical progression from setting up the test and
initializing the test data (usually expressed by the GIVEN
part), performing some operation that
generates a result you want to test (often contained in the WHEN
part), and verifying this result
meets your expectations (the THEN
part, naturally).
Filling in the above with actual test code might look like this:
TEST_CASE( "sweet junk food", "[food][junk][sweet]" )
{
avatar dummy;
dummy.clear_morale();
GIVEN( "character has a sweet tooth" ) {
dummy.toggle_trait( trait_PROJUNK );
WHEN( "they eat some junk food" ) {
item necco( "neccowafers" );
dummy.eat( necco );
THEN( "they get a morale bonus from its sweetness" ) {
CHECK( dummy.has_morale( MORALE_SWEETTOOTH ) >= 5 );
}
}
}
}
Let’s look at each part in turn to see what’s going on. First, we declare an avatar
, representing
the character or player. This test is going to check the player’s morale, so we clear it to ensure a
clean slate:
avatar dummy;
dummy.clear_morale();
Inside the GIVEN
, we want some code that implements what the GIVEN
is saying - that the
character has a sweet tooth. In the game’s code, this is represented with the PROJUNK
trait, so we
can set that using toggle_trait
:
GIVEN( "character has a sweet tooth" ) {
dummy.toggle_trait( trait_PROJUNK );
Now, notice we are nested inside the GIVEN
- for the rest of the scope of that GIVEN
, the
dummy
will have this trait. For this simple test it will only affect a couple more lines, but when
your tests become larger and more complex (which they will), you will need to be aware of these
nested scopes and how you can use them to avoid cross-pollution between your tests.
Anyway, now that our dummy
has a sweet tooth, we want them to eat something sweet, so we can spawn
the neccowafers
item and tell them to eat some:
WHEN( "they eat some junk food" ) {
dummy.eat( item( "neccowafers" ) );
The function(s) you invoke at this point are often the focus of your testing; the goal is to
exercise some pathway through those function(s) in such a way that your code will be reached, and
thus covered by the test. The eat
function is used as an example here, but that is quite a
high-level, complex function itself, with many behaviors and sub-behaviors. Since this test case is
only interested in the morale effect, a better test would invoke a lower-level function that eat
invokes, such as modify_morale
.
Our dummy
has eaten the neccowafers
, but did it do anything? Because they have a sweet tooth,
they should get a specific morale bonus known as MORALE_SWEETTOOTH
, and it should be at least 5
in magnitude:
THEN( "they get a morale bonus from its sweetness" ) {
CHECK( dummy.has_morale( MORALE_SWEETTOOTH ) >= 5 );
}
This CHECK
macro takes a boolean expression, failing the test if the expression is false.
Likewise, you can use CHECK_FALSE
, which will fail if the expression is true.
Requiring or Checking
While the CHECK
and CHECK_FALSE
macros make assertions about the truth or falsity of
expressions, they still allow the test to continue, even when they fail. This lets you do several
CHECK
s, and be informed if one or more of them do not meet your expectations.
Another kind of assertion is the REQUIRE
(and its counterpart REQUIRE_FALSE
). Unlike the CHECK
assertions, REQUIRE
will not continue if it fails - this assertion is considered essential for the
test to continue.
A REQUIRE
is useful when you wish to double-check your assumptions after making some change to the
system state. For example, here are a couple of REQUIRE
s added to the sweet-tooth test, to ensure
our dummy
really has the desired trait, and that the neccowafers
really are junk food:
GIVEN( "character has a sweet tooth" ) {
dummy.toggle_trait( trait_PROJUNK );
REQUIRE( dummy.has_trait( trait_PROJUNK ) );
WHEN( "they eat some junk food" ) {
item necco( "neccowafers" );
REQUIRE( necco.has_flag( "ALLERGEN_JUNK" ) );
dummy.eat( necco );
THEN( "they get a morale bonus from its sweetness" ) {
CHECK( dummy.has_morale( MORALE_SWEETTOOTH ) >= 5 );
}
}
}
We use REQUIRE
here, because there is no reason to continue the test if these fail. If our
assumptions are wrong, nothing that follows is valid. Clearly, if toggle_trait
failed to give the
character the PROJUNK
trait, or if the neccowafers
turn out not to be made of sugar after all,
then our test of the morale bonus is meaningless.
You can think of REQUIRE
as being a prerequisite for the test, while CHECK
is looking at the
results of the test.