Up to now, these dummy functions where used by various unit tests
directly, by creating command definitions within the test fixture.
But since it is foreseeable that we'll need dummy commands for various
further unit tests, it seems adequate to setup a global static registration
with the newly created system of command registrations for these dummies.
this is a prerequisite for command instance management:
We have now an (almost) complete framework for writing actual
command definitions in practice, which will be registered automatically.
This could be complemented (future work) by a script in the build process
to regenerate proc/cmd.hpp based on the IDs of those automatic definitions.
as it stands, this does not work, since lambdas are passed by-value,
while function references can only be passed by explicit reference,
otherwise they'll degrade to a function pointer. And std::function
requires a plain function signature as type argument, not the type
of a function pointer (which doesn't mean you can't construct a
std::function from a FP, indeed there is an explicit overload for
that).
The point in question is how to manage these definitions in practice,
since we're about to create a huge lot of them eventually. The solution
attempted here is heavily inspired by the boost-test framework
Writing and debugging such tests is always an interesting challenge...
Fortunately this exercise didn't unveil any problem in the newly written
code, only some insidious problems in the test fixture itself. Which
again highlights the necessity, that each *command instance* needs
to be an independent clone from the original *command prototype*,
since argument binding messages and trigger messages can appear
in arbitrary order.
the intention is to cover more of the full invocation path,
without running all of the application infrastructure. So this
second test cases simulates how messages are handled in CoreService,
where the CommandHandler (visitor) actually invokes the SessionCommand
facade
command processing against the session is not yet implemented,
so to allow for unit testing, we magically recognise all commands
starting with "test." and invoke them directly within the Dispatcher.
With this addition, the basic functionality of the dispatcher works now
need also to start and stop the interface registry,
since by policy we do not run the application framework itself
for execution of the test suite; thus if some test actually needs
an application service, it must be started/stopped manually
...since the session loop will be notified on any change via the
interface, adding a command will activate the loop, and the builder
timeout is handled separately via the dirty state. So there is no
need to spin around the loop in idle state.
As a aside, timeout waiting on a condition variable can be intentional
and should thus not be logged as an error automatically. It is up to the
calling context to decide if a timeout constitutes an exceptional situation.
It is always a trade-off performance vs. readability.
Sometimes a single-threaded implementation of self-contained logic
is preferable to a slightly more performant yet obscure implementation
based on our threadpool and scheduler.
...this means to turn Looper into a state machine.
Yet it seems more feasible, since the DispatcherLoop has a nice
checkpoint after each iteration through the while loop, and we'd
keep that whole builder-dirty business completely confined within
the Looper (with a little help of the DispatcherLoop)
Let's see if the state transition logic can actually be implemented
based just on such a checkpoint....?
