make check fails

Christian Stimming christian at
Thu Jun 13 10:16:07 EDT 2013

Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2013, 10:05:49 schrieb John Ralls:
> You wrote in the commit message:
> "Sigh. It turns out the utest-Split.c relies on the "warning" log level
> in order to check for specific code paths. This sucks. The log level
> "warning" should please be reserved for things that are actual warnings,
> not for code path checks that are used in the unittests."
> That's not correct. utest-Split may rely on the presence of the message to
> check the code path, and in order to do so needs to match the loglevel,
> logdomain, and message string. If you change one of those in the tested
> function, you just change it to match in the test and it should work. In
> this case you want to change the "foo differ" warnings to infos. No big
> deal, just change the loglevel in the tests to match.

Hi John,

the problem is that it's not sufficient to "just change it to match the test". 
I saw in utest-Split.c lines 424-428 how a set of loglevels was selected for 
various check counters. However, adding the G_LOG_LEVEL_INFO to the set of 
loglevels in line 424 doesn't work because other tests rely on exactly the 
chosen set of loglevels that are in use now. Changing the set of log levels 
solely for the checkC counter doesn't work either, because even this one 
relies on exactly only this set log level in some other code path tests. 
That's when I gave up and summarized this experienced in the quoted commit 

> Now, ideally unit tests would only be checking the message to make sure
> that it's emitted: That's a side-effect of the function, and a unit test
> should test all of the function's effects. Unfortunately most of the engine
> consists of over-long functions with multiple code paths whose behavior is
> difficult to test correctly coupled with excessive class interdependencies
> . In order to be able to refactor them for better testability I have to
> first get them tested somehow so that I'll know when I break something in
> the refactor.

I certainly agree the overly-long functions make unittesting even harder. 
Maybe I'm just not understanding the unittesting that includes checking for 
log output. In that case I'd appreciate if you change the PWARN into PINFO and 
correctly adapt the unittest. Thanks!


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list