X.org testing with Google Test
thomas.voss at canonical.com
Mon Jan 2 00:18:03 PST 2012
On 12/30/2011 10:24 PM, Matt Dew wrote:
> On 12/23/2011 04:36 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 12/21/2011 08:51 AM, Thomas Voß wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Hi list,
>>> my name is Thomas and I'm a software engineer in quality working for
>>> Canonical. Our quality team is currently extending the test coverage
>>> of Canonical's upstream projects. To this end, we are developing a
>>> number of components for providing a unified testing landscape to
>>> One of our focus areas is the headless automated testing of
>>> applications and components that interact with the X display server.
>>> For many testing scenarios, only a dummy X server without any display
>>> capabilities is required and we abstracted/integrated start up and
>>> tear down of such a configuration within a Google Test environment
>>> that is readily usable by developers (see ).
>>> Google Test  is a unit testing framework tailored towards C and
>>> C++. It is lightweight and provides a decent set of functionality for
>>> writing unit tests:
>> I'm in favor of gtest. I've just started using it with Mesa, and I have
>> some (unposted) unit tests for the GLX_ARB_create_context patch series
>> that I just posted to the list.
>>> * Automatic test registration: Tests are automatically discovered and
>>> recognized. That is, no manual maintenance for executing tests is
>>> * An extensive set of assertion macros is provided.
>>> * The XML output is compatible with JUnit's XML dialect and can be
>>> integrated easily with continuous integration systems (e.g. Jenkins
>>> * Support for custom test fixtures that unify test setup and cleanup
>>> procedures, thus avoiding boiler plate code within the actual test.
>>> * Support for custom test environments for bundling problem specific
>>> setup and cleanup routines.
>> The big advantage of a test framework like gtest is that the
>> infrastructure makes it easy to write a large number of small, easy to
>> understand (WTF is this testing?), easy to debug (WTF is this failing?)
>> tests. For the work mentioned above, I wrote about 75 tests. It wasn't
>> until I was done that I even realized how many there were. This seems
>> like a good thing.
>>> Our extension to Google Test defines a custom test environment and a
>>> custom test fixture that take care of starting up and tearing down a
>>> dummy xserver environment (environment.h) as well as opening up a
>>> display connection (test.h). Moreover, a custom main is included
>>> within our extension that extends Google Test's main and makes sure
>>> that our dummy X server testing environment is known to the whole test
>>> suite. Please see  for a usage scenario within utouch-frame and 
>>> for xorg-gtest's doxygen documentation.
>>> As we think that this kind of unified testing architecture might be of
>>> interest to a wider developer audience, we would like to bring it to
>>> your attention by this mail. The project is currently hosted in
>>> cndougla's freedesktop.org place, but we feel a better home would be
>>> on freedesktop.org. It looks like a good landing spot would be in
>>> xorg/test on the git.freedesktop.org page. Is there a formal process
>>> for proposing projects, or should we just create a repository there?
>>> Of course, your feedback is highly appreciated.
>>> Kind regards,
> Hi guys,
> I'm all for testing frameworks. Would this tie into tinderbox at all?
> From what I understand, tinderbox just does periodic compiles to make
> sure builds didn't break but isn't actually a formal test environment.
> Would this remain completely independent of that?
> If I'm wrong on tinderbox, please correct me.
If I understand it correctly, tinderbox is a continuous integration
system (much like Jenkins) that compiles and executes unit tests. That
is, it should be no problem to execute the unit test executables built
with our framework/Google test.
Google test produces XML output that we are using in Jenkins to
visualize test results and report on a project's build health. I do not
know whether this kind of integration would be possible with tinderbox
> xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
More information about the xorg-devel