These seem fitting here, even if the test defines aren't "real defines".
The duplicate expressions should still be side-effect free and easy to
optimize out.
This should also avoid future lfs_min32 vs intmax_t issues.
The previous system of relying on test name prefixes for ordering was
simple, but organizing tests by dependencies and topologically sorting
during compilation is 1. more flexible and 2. simplifies test names,
which get typed a lot.
Note these are not "hard" dependencies, each test suite should work fine
in isolation. These "after" dependencies just hint an ordering when all
tests are ran.
As such, it's worth noting the tests should NOT error of a dependency is
missing. This unfortunately makes it a bit hard to catch typos, but
allows faster compilation of a subset of tests.
---
To make this work the way tests are linked has changed from using custom
linker section (fun linker magic!) to a weakly linked array appended to
every source file (also fun linker magic!).
At least with this method test.py has strict control over the test
ordering, and doesn't depend on 1. the order in which the linker merges
sections, and 2. the order tests are passed to test.py. I didn't realize
the previous system was so fragile.
It doesn't make sense to test more complex logic, such as t2_btree.toml,
when the logic it is built on, t1_rbyd.toml, does not past testing. The
test runner already guarantees a consistent lexicographic order, so all
we need to do is renamed these from test_* -> tn_*.
Note, if we every have more than 10 tests, we will need to bump up the
number of digits for all tests, so t1_rbyd.toml -> t01_rbyd.toml. This
is the main downside of lexicographic ordering. But we'll cross that
bridge when we get to it.
The main benefit is small test ids everywhere, though this is with the
downside of needing longer names to properly prefix and avoid
collisions. But this fits into the rest of the scripts with globally
unique names a bit better. This is a C project after all.
The other small benefit is test generators may have an easier time since
per-case symbols can expect to be unique.
On one hand this seems like the wrong place for these tests, on the
other hand, it's good to know that the block device is behaving as
expected when debugging the filesystem.
Maybe this should be moved to an external program for users to test
their block devices in the future?
Christopher Haster