Remove deprecated description field from Sections

[philsquared]

Description

Like with TEST_CASE, SECTON started out with a separate description field as the name field was intended to be a hierarchical scheme, and the description the more wordy version.
When we dropped the hierarchical naming and the name became the wordy field description fell redundant. For TEST_CASE the position is now taken by tags (although it still supports description, too, for now). For SECTION it is just dead weight.

I've removed any usage of the field internally, and in the test and example code. But the macro argument and member variable of SectionInfo are part of the public interface and need to remain for now. They should be considered deprecated.

In v3 we will remove the macro argument and SectionInfo field altogether.

I'll consider adding a deprecation warning in v2 if the field is used.

[capsocrates]

Bummer, I just started using short, descriptive SECTION names to make it easier to run a specific section. So I've been moving descriptive text for the SECTION into that field.

For example, here's some of my test code (with most of the actual code ripped out to focus on the use of SECTIONs

TEST_CASE("Server")
{
	const auto uri{
		web::http::uri_builder{}
		.set_scheme(U("http"))
		.set_host(U("localhost"))
		.set_port(34568)
		.to_uri()
	};
	SECTION("Construction", "It can be constructed from a valid URI without exceptions")
	{
		REQUIRE_NOTHROW(Web::FileServer{ uri });
	}
	SECTION("FileRegistry", "Files can be registered with it")
	{
		//test code for adding files to the server goes here
		SECTION("FileDeregistry", "Files can be un-registered from it")
		{
			//test code for removing files from the server goes here
			REQUIRE(server.FilesBeingServed().empty());
		}
	}
	SECTION("InvalidFileRegistry", "Files cannot be registered with it twice")
	{
		//test code goes here
		SECTION("InvalidFileDeregistry", "Files that have not been registered fail to unregister")
		{
			REQUIRE(!server.StopServingFile("cde"));
		}
	}
	SECTION("Download", "Files can be downloaded from the server")
	{
		//test code goes here

		SECTION("DownloadOne", "It can download one file from the server")
		{
			//test code goes here
		}

		SECTION("DownloadTwoAsync", "It can download two different files asynchronously")
		{
			//test code goes here
		}

		SECTION("DownloadTwoParallel", "It can download two different files and read them in parallel")
		{
			//test code goes here
		}

		SECTION("NonexistentFile", "Requesting a file that the server does not have results in an error")
		{
			//test code goes here
		}
	}
}

This lets me do something like WebTest Server -c Download -c DownloadTwoParallel to run just one specific section (and its parents). If the name field is also the description field, typing out those arguments becomes more difficult and error-prone.

[capsocrates]

Any word on how we'll be able to get the above functionality when descriptions are removed?

[horenmar]

@capsocrates That is an interesting use case. Would you be ok with the SECTION macro being able to take two arguments, but just ignoring the second one?

[capsocrates]

That would work for me, yes.

…

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 08:10 Martin Hořeňovský ***@***.***> wrote: @capsocrates <https://github.com/capsocrates> That is an interesting use case. Would you be ok with the SECTION macro being able to take two arguments, but just ignoring the second one? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1319?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACMKPXRO7ALC23SNUC6BXLTQRLRMJA5CNFSM4FG55MZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECX5C2I#issuecomment-548393321>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACMKPXVEVOTBUCBP2HXG77TQRLRMJANCNFSM4FG55MZA> .