This change is required to pass cross builds on to a different machine after the build.
For tests managed by CTest, the new UNIVALUE_JSON_TEST_SRC environment variable is set automatically. For other cases, it must be set manually. If not set, it defaults to the current working directory.
See for example #31176, but this PR will also allow someone to implement it outside this repo.
Also see: #31176 (review).
This change is required to pass cross builds on to a different machine
after the build.
For tests managed by CTest, the new `UNIVALUE_JSON_TEST_SRC` environment
variable is set automatically. For other cases, it must be set manually.
If not set, it defaults to the current working directory.
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31434.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Concept ACK | theuni |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
16-std::string srcdir(JSON_TEST_SRC);
17+std::string srcdir = []() {
18+ if (const char* env_srcdir = std::getenv("UNIVALUE_JSON_TEST_SRC")) {
19+ return env_srcdir;
20+ }
21+ return ".";
This will be asserting later on anyway, as the files can likely not be opened. So I think it is fine and even preferable to assert early.
0 return Assert(std::getenv("UNIVALUE_JSON_TEST_SRC")));
edit: I guess with Assert replaced by assert…
exit(1) directly? Or breaking this out so that main() returns non-zero in this case? Otherwise there’s no (helpful) indication of how to run the binary correctly when it fails.
I think Assert/assert will already print the stringified content of the assert, which should be self-explanatory, at least in the context of a unit test that is only for developers (not shipped with releases). But anything is probably fine here.
A step further could even go as far as directly embedding the blobs in the exe?
A step further could even go as far as directly embedding the blobs in the exe?
I think I would prefer that.