Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 521703
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T08:16:38+00:00 2026-05-13T08:16:38+00:00

I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque

  • 0

I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it.

Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I’d like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it.

My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic?

For example, let’s take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test:

WSArray a = WSArrayCreate();
int foo = 5;
WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo);
int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0);

if(&foo != bar)
    printf("Eroneous value returned\n");
else
    printf("Good value returned\n");

WSRelease(a);

Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state.

In my example, I don’t know if some internal state of the array is broken.

How would you handle that? I’d really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me.

My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library.

For example:

#include <WS/WS.h>
#include <WS/Collection/Array.c>

static void TestArray(void)
{
    WSArray a = WSArrayCreate();
    /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */
    printf("%d\n", a->count);     
}

Is that a good idea?

Of course, the unit tests won’t benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it’s actually working.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T08:16:39+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 8:16 am

    I would test only the API, and focus on testing every possible corner case.

    I can see the interest in checking that the memory structures hold what you expect. If you do this you will be tightly coupling the tests to the specifics of the implementation and I think creating a lot of long-term maintenance.

    My thought here is that the API is the contract and if you fulfil that then yoru code is working. If you change the implementation later then presumably one of the things you need to know is that the contract is maintained. Your unit tests will verify that.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 357k
  • Answers 357k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer The other answers are correct. Here is some code you… May 14, 2026 at 9:40 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer you ruin the noConflict concept by reassigning the jquery to… May 14, 2026 at 9:40 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer If you get that particular error, you don't actually have… May 14, 2026 at 9:40 am

Related Questions

No related questions found

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.