Failing on purpose

[semmel]

Sometimes I find it useful to let a test fail deliberately.
For this matter I discovered the FAIL macro digging around in catch.hpp.
Nice! 👍

However FAIL - like REQUIRE - aborts the execution of the local scope.
I needed something like FAIL but in the flavor of CHECK:

#define FAIL_CHECK( ... ) INTERNAL_CATCH_MSG( Catch::ResultWas::ExplicitFailure, Catch::ResultDisposition::ContinueOnFailure, "FAIL", __VA_ARGS__ )

Is that macro future-proof? I.e is FAIL part of Catch' public API?
INTERNAL_CATCH_MSG is certainly not meant to be used be clients, or is it?

Now I can let the test fail deliberately e.g. from inside a timeout callback which has previously crashed using FAIL
Example with Reactive Extensions for C++:

auto sequence = rxcpp::observable<>::interval(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
sequence
.take(2)
.timeout(std::chrono::milliseconds(50))
.subscribe([](int value)
{
	CHECK(value == 1);
},
[](std::exception_ptr exPtr)
{
	try
	{
		std::rethrow_exception(exPtr);
	} 
	catch (const rxcpp::timeout_error&)
	{
		FAIL_CHECK("expected timeout failure");
	}
});

[philsquared]

You're right to be suspicious of using anything that starts with INTERNAL_.
In practice that's been stable for a long time.
But in this case this feature probably makes sense in the framework itself. I'll try and get it added soon.

[philsquared]

That's in now on master (but not the single include).
I'm going to mark this issue for closure soon.

[semmel]

Great! 👍
Thanks!

[horenmar]

This is in the latest release, so I am going to close the issue.