Jump to: navigation, search

Nasal Unit Testing Framework

8,899 bytes added, 13:07, 25 April 2020
clever wiki ...
{{infobox subsystem
|image =
|name =Nasal Unit Testing Framework
|started= 02/2014 (stalled)
|description = Unit Testing support for Nasal
|status = RFC
|maintainers = F-JYL, dbelcham, Hooray, Philosopher
|developers = dbelcham, F-JYL (since 02/2014),
{{Template:Nasal Navigation}}
== Status 06/2013 ==
We do not currently have any established unit testing framework for Nasal. For the time being, this whole discussion is just about coming up with the requirements and a possible design.
The intent is to explore the idea of being able to run isolated unit tests against Nasal scripts. The idea was being able to do something like this:
See also {{flightgear commit|d7a680}}.
=== Concept ===
<syntaxhighlight lang="bash">
standalone-nasal.exe ATR72-FMC-tests.nas
and see output like this:
the_provided_maximum_should_be_returned (failed: expected 180 was 99)
the_result_should_be_67_degrees (failed: expected 67 was 66)
=== The standalone Nasal interpreter ===
Based on what I read about the current stand-alone interpreter this should be fairly easy to do. That should now be possible, the nasal-standalone branch builds successfully for Windows (make sure to have boost available for building cppbind):
Here's the Nasal standalone interpreter as part of SimGear: {{gitorious source|proj=fg|repo=hoorays-simgear|branch=topics/nasal-standalone|view=shortlog}}
Just check out the branch named "nasal-bin".
To build it:
<syntaxhighlight lang="bash">
cd $SG_SRC
mkdir BUILD
* create and use a separate build folder, separate from the source tree
* build
* report back
Note that there's no need to actually install anything (make install), because we are just using the SimGear library to build a standalone nasal-bin binary, nothing else.
Let us know if there are still any windows-specific build errors so that we can fix the config file. It should give you a "nasal-bin.exe" in $SG_BUILD/simgear/nasal/ that runs just Nasal scripts, no FG APIs whatsoever - you '''need''' to pass a valid Nasal script when running the file.
You should be able to "make test" to run a bunch of standard Nasal tests from the original Nasal repository, which are to be found in $SG_SRC/nasal/tests: {{gitorious source|proj=fg|repo=hoorays-simgear|view=tree|branch=topics/nasal-standalone|path=simgear/nasal/tests}}
Meanwhile, the build actually works for Windows using the MingW compiler - providing a nasal-bin.exe, which I cannot test currently because I don't have a Windows VM available:{{dead link}}
To run it, open a shell (START/EXECUTE cmd/command) and go to the folder of the binary, add a simple Nasal script and run "nasal-bin script.nas", i.e. use one of the scripts in: {{gitorious source|proj=fg|repo=hoorays-simgear|view=tree|branch=topics/nasal-standalone|path=simgear/nasal/tests}}
=== Roadmap ===
* get the stand-alone interpreter compiling and running against both windows and Linux (currently there are a bunch of libraries used that aren't available on Windows) {{done}}
* build a set of Nasal scripts that provide stubs for native fg calls (getprop/setprop/etc) {{Not done}}
* build out testing script with the ability to verify values and report failures to the console {{Not done}}
* send a patch upstream, so that a standalone Nasal interpreter is included in each upcoming release {{Not done}}
Once we have those three things we would be able to write and execute tests independent of FG and still have them be meaningful. The key thing to remember is that this would be only for isolated unit tests. For integration tests (verifying that different systems, whether 2 different scripts/methods/application, work together correctly) we would need to think about a different approach.
It should be doable to teach the nasal-bin.exe to check $FG_ROOT, and use that if available to load a semi-plausible FG environment (API-wise) - using some fancy meta-programming tricks, most of the default APIs could probably be wrapped, without too much manual work involved. Philosopher could be truly instrumental here, because he really has a deep understanding of some of the more esoteric tricks that can be done in Nasal space, referring to advanced uses of compile(), bind(), call(), closure() and caller() - which make meta-programming a fantastic experience. Basically, familiarity with this handful of APIs, can save tons of time:
There's quite a lot of stuff possible in Nasal, that nobody ever used in FG - Philosopher has started writing a bunch of tutorials, for example see: [[Nasal Meta-Programming]]
And you can take a look at some of the scripts in the standalone branch, which support fancy constructs like dependency resolution using import("foo"); but also completely sandboxed/wrapped environments: {{gitorious source|proj=fg|repo=hoorays-simgear|view=tree|branch=topics/nasal-standalone|path=simgear/nasal/tests}}
These are regression tests developed by the Nasal developer himself, so not true unit testing - but only regression tests for the interpreter itself.
=== Contributing ===
If possible, new code should be contributed to the maintainers, ideally even a branch of FG_ROOT, because that will make it easier to directly integrate such a unit testing system with all the code we got in $FG_ROOT/Nasal.
== Problem ==
Wrapping APIs is simple to do in Nasal, too - without even requiring C/C++ changes, a standalone testbed could be scripted in Nasal like this:
<syntaxhighlight lang="phpnasal"> 
var tree = {};
var isalpha = func(n) n >= `a` and n <= `z` or n >= `A` and n <= `Z`;
var isdigit = func(n) n >= `0` and n <= `9`;
var sanitize = func(p) {
if (!p) die();
if (p[0] == `/`) p = substr(p, 1, nil);
parts = split("/", p);
for (var i=0; i<size(parts); i+=1) {
if (parts[i] == "") {
if (i == size(parts)-1)
parts = parts[:i-1];
else parts = parts[:i-1] ~ parts[i+1:];
} else {
for (var j=0; j<size(parts[i]); j+=1) {
if (parts[i][j] == `[`) break;
if (parts[i][j] != `-` and !isalpha(parts[i][j]) and
parts[i][j] != `_` and !isdigit(parts[i][j]) and
parts[i][j] != `.`) die("bad character in name "~parts[i]~" at index "~j~".");
if (j == size(parts[i]))
parts[i] ~= "[0]";
elsif (parts[i][-1] != `]`) die("bad index specifier in string "~parts[i]~".")
var p = "/";
foreach (var part; parts)
p ~= part;
return p;
# wrappers for the FG setprop/getprop APIs:
var setprop = func(p, value) tree[sanitize(p) ] = value;var getprop = func(p) return tree[sanitize(p) ] or 0.; # some tests: var path = ["/foo/bar", "/foo[00]/bar[0]","/foo[0]/bar[0]/", "/foo/bar[0]","/foo[0]/bar/","/foo[0]/bar/"];var value = "MyUniqueValue";setprop(path[0], value);foreach(var p; path) if (getprop(p) != value) die("sanitize() implementation is broken");print("sanitize() looks good!\n");
# init your tree:
We would need to use custom script-specific wrappers, instead of the main FG/Nasal APIs and modules - so that your Nasal code *never* uses the APIs directly, that way you can easily have different implementations - i.e.
<syntaxhighlight lang="phpnasal">
var debug_profile = {};
var runtime_profile = {};
print( current_profile.systime() );
# or simply override the global symbols during initialization:
var systime = current_profile.systime;
print( systime() );
I had the idea, which you implemented above, of just overriding the get/setprop un the scripts. I guess taking that Sudafed might pay off in more ways than one.
Ultimately what I'd like to have is an implementation of something like the jUnit/xUnit/nUnit testing frameworks. Tonight's goal will be to hack out a rough implementation that allows for isolation of the property tree.
== Integration & Adoption ==
Unit testing support in Nasal would certainly be beneficial - but it would need to be added to FG at a library-level, i.e. in $FG_ROOT/Nasal, so that people have to use it, and have an advantage when using it - sort of like the RoR example you mentioned previously.
I could see that being useful for many things, even outside aircraft development - but thinking in th most generic terms, we need to find a compromise that will not just work for specialists who have a decade of unit testing experience, but also our average aircraft developers.
Scripting-wise, I think we really only got a handful of people here who regularly write Nasal code and who would also see the merits and potentially adopt the system.
People would only be likely to actually use that if they have a corresponding developers background, so it would need to be designed right into the framework and touch lots of places in $FG_ROOT and $FG_AIRCRAFT - I only see a handful of aircraft developers here who would go that route and actually have the mental capacity, and developer mentality to see the merits here.
Probably,a handful of people would be able to use it, but if it's well documented, and if it actually supports features not provided otherwise, it could gain traction - so it would need to be more compelling than the current workflow obviously.
A unit testing framework is definitely going to be useful for $FG_ROOT as a whole, not just aircraft/instrument developers. Obviously, one of the first steps will be documenting the whole thing with tutorials, so that people can start adopting it.

Navigation menu