I figured we should, at some point tackle this, since it is kind of annoying. However, laziness had taken over all my time for reporting this issue. We've reached a point where we have some QbitAllocators, whose final mappings are not really obvious. The approach we choose was to establish standard functional tests, while checking whether the semantics and architectural constraints were kept.
That said, they all work. But we all those "standard" tests are overlapping code with only some types different. Thus, I urge for a generalized testing environment for both QbitAllocators and ArchGraphs.
Solution: one I can think of is by calling InitializeAllArchitectures (the same for QbitAllocators), and iterating through the list, testing instantiation, and functionality.
I figured we should, at some point tackle this, since it is kind of annoying. However, laziness had taken over all my time for reporting this issue. We've reached a point where we have some
QbitAllocators, whose final mappings are not really obvious. The approach we choose was to establish standard functional tests, while checking whether the semantics and architectural constraints were kept.That said, they all work. But we all those "standard" tests are overlapping code with only some types different. Thus, I urge for a generalized testing environment for both
QbitAllocatorsandArchGraphs.Solution: one I can think of is by calling
InitializeAllArchitectures(the same forQbitAllocators), and iterating through the list, testing instantiation, and functionality.