ludic/docs/language/testing/kw-test.md
Orkuncakilkaya e175619543 refactor(cli)!: split the contributor tool out of the ludic CLI
`ludic help` ended with a section titled "contributing to the toolchain itself",
listing bootstrap, reseed, docs-gen and release tasks. None of that is available
to someone who installed the language — those tasks need the repository — so the
shipped tool was advertising work its user cannot do, in a namespace they have to
read past to find `new` and `run`.

The tasks move to a second program, dev.ludic -> bin/ludic-dev, built from a
checkout and excluded from every release artifact. `ludic` keeps the project and
package commands and nothing else; `ludic dev …` now explains where the tasks
went instead of failing as an unknown command.

What this shook out: the two programs share prelude/build/project/pkg, so the
helpers each had accreted in whichever file first needed them — cc(),
ensure_ludicc, the string functions, title_case, cmd_version — moved to where
both can see them. The argument-shift indirection added for the `dev` namespace
is gone with the namespace, so commands read argv directly again.

`ludic-dev test` asserts the split rather than trusting it: the staged install
must build a project, and `ludic dev build` there must fail while naming
ludic-dev. install.sh keeps building older tags, whose bootstrap goes through
main.ludic.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-05 23:15:12 +03:00

46 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown

---
id: kw-test
name: test
category: testing
kind: keyword
tokens: test
sig: test "name" { … }
tip: A named test block, run automatically with pass/fail reporting.
order: 1
---
A <code>test "name" { … }</code> block declares a named test. Every test in a file is discovered automatically and run by a generated entry point — there is no <code>entry</code> to write and nothing to register. The runner prints <code>ok - name</code> for a test whose assertions all held and <code>FAIL - name</code> for one that had a failure, then a <code>== N passed, M failed ==</code> summary, and the program exits non-zero if any test failed. Writing a test should feel like writing a function: put a few assertions in a block and run it.
Assertions (each records a failure and prints <code>file:line: … failed</code> but keeps going, so one run reports every failure):
- `expect(cond)` — the boolean `cond` must be true.
- `expect_eq(a, b)` — `a` must equal `b`; on failure prints `(got a, want b)`.
- `expect_near(a, b, tol)` — `a` must be within `tol` of `b` (absolute). Use it for `fixed`-point results and accumulated integer math, where an exact match is too brittle.
Run a spec file directly with the compiler-runner — `ludic mymath_test.ludic` compiles it to a native binary, runs it, and forwards the pass/fail exit code — so it drops straight into `bin/ludic` and CI.
<strong>Line coverage.</strong> Compile with the <code>--coverage</code> flag and the compiler instruments every statement with a per-source-line hit counter; at exit the counts are written to the file named by <code>$LUDIC_COVERAGE</code> (default <code>ludic.cov</code>) as a <code>FILE &lt;name&gt;</code> header followed by one <code>&lt;line&gt; &lt;hits&gt;</code> row per instrumented line. The instrumentation is flag-gated and additive, so an ordinary build — and the compiler's own self-compile — stays byte-identical. <code>bin/ludic-dev test --coverage</code> compiles the test specs this way, runs them, and aggregates the dumps into a per-file report that names the lines your tests never reached:
```
== line coverage (bin/ludic-dev test --coverage) ==
examples/library/coverage.ludic 16/17 lines 94% uncovered: 33
examples/library/testing.ludic 17/17 lines 100%
----
total: 33/34 lines 97%
```
```ludic
program MathSpec {
function add(a: int, b: int) -> int { return a + b }
test "addition adds" {
expect_eq(add(2, 3), 5)
expect(add(1, 1) == 2)
}
test "fixed math is close enough" {
let half = fixed(1) / 2 # 0.5 in Q16.16
expect_near(half, 32768, 2) # within 2 raw units of 0.5
}
}
```