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.
...since there is not any test coverage for this trait, which
turned out to be quite deeply rooted in the system by now and
handles several rather subtle special cases
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.
This is a little bit of functionality needed again and again;
first I thought to use the TypedCounter, but this would be overkill,
since we do not actually need different instances, and we do not need
to select by type when incrementing the counter. In fact, we do not
even need anything beyond just allocating a number.
So I made a new class, which can be used RAII style
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
this was a spin-off activity from writing the SessionCommand
function(integration) test, where I noted that we can't just
capture "a time value" as command memento
basically this is not necessary, since the compiler figures out
to use the conversion to target type when attempting to resolve
an equality comparison. But it helps to avoid ambiguities in cases
where several conversion paths do exist, e.g. when comparing string
with C-string
explicitly observed with the debugger that the call path is sane;
the code looks innocuous, but it is quite magic how the compiler
picks precisely the right ctors and inserts conversions apropriately
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.
