Added unit test manager

[SensibleSalmon]

TODO:

• convert the remaining UTests to Catch tests
• add test maketarget to master Makefile
• add diff-cover maketarget to loudly complain about differences in coverage
• Add docs on writing tests
• Squash all the things

Not ready for merge.

Technically depends on #10
Addresses #1

[SensibleSalmon]

Current progress: Have migrated all of utests/tools/* to catch.

Now we just have to do the rest (ugh)

[SensibleSalmon]

Current coverage stats:

[SensibleSalmon]

Also ran into a bad test with geometry:

REQUIRE(body1.CalcPressure() == 32);

CalcPressure doesn't exist.

Additionally,

REQUIRE(circle0.HasOverlap(circle_big) == false)

This is apparently True

I'm currently marking all failing tests with "BAD TEST" and commenting them out since I don't know if their behavior changes were intended.

[SensibleSalmon]

Author class was missing the constructor for only being given a last name; I added it.

[SensibleSalmon]

• Change test maketarget to not run coverage things, make coverage run coverage things

[SensibleSalmon]

• document dependencies (g++, lcov, gcov)

moved to another issue / downgraded in priority

if someone tries to run these and they explode, poke me

[mercere99]

Hrrrm... maybe I'm not understanding what it means by "Line Coverage" vs. "Function Coverage". How can you have 100% Line Coverage, but less than 100% Function Coverage? More generally, some of those look better covered than I would have ever expected. ;-)

[SensibleSalmon]

Looks like that's where the coverage metrics run afoul of the
#ifdef/#define blocks. I'll have to experiment some.

One thing to keep track of is that though the code is covered it doesn't
necessarily have asserts keeping track of what it does--so we know it
doesn't explode when compiled/run, but we don't know if it runs correctly

But that's true of nearly all testing setups.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:19 PM Charles Ofria [email protected]
wrote:

Hrrrm... maybe I'm not understanding what it means by "Line Coverage" vs.
"Function Coverage". How can you have 100% Line Coverage, but less than
100% Function Coverage? More generally, some of those look better covered
than I would have ever expected. ;-)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12 (comment).

[SensibleSalmon]

dependency: gcovr
https://github.com/gcovr/gcovr/releases

Nope, nevermind

[SensibleSalmon]

Alright, current difficulty: finding a good way to see if test coverage has dropped/changed/code was added that's not covered.

That might be an issue I just table for now and hammer on later.

[SensibleSalmon]

@mercere99 Ready for merge at your leisure

[SensibleSalmon]

(the 12k deleted files are from where I forgot to not include the doc/build directory in commits and I deleted them, if you're wondering. gitignore and make clean have been updated accordingly)