Adding test matrix feature

[AJIOB]

As an analog for TEST_CASE(...) & TEST_RANGE(...), you can use TEST_MATRIX(...) for defining custom test cases.

TEST_MATRIX macro parsing can be enabled together with TEST_RANGE.

Supports almost all found C & C++ literals & expressions (expect array addressing with [], such as my_arr[26]). Also supports multiline matrixes, ranges & cases.

Examples of some tests with that usage:

TEST_MATRIX([ "World", "More \"words", "than ]", "one)", NULL ], [ 5, 8, 4, 32 ])
TEST_MATRIX([
        NULL, "name",
        "name1", "2name", "33name"
    ], [4])
void test_nothing(const char *s, uint32_t b)
{
    TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL_MESSAGE(s, "Bad string");
    TEST_ASSERT_NOT_EQUAL_UINT32_MESSAGE(0, b, "Number is zero");
}

[AJIOB]

Hello @mvandervoord,

Have I lost some requirements for merging that merge?

With regards,
Alex

[mvandervoord]

Hi Alex:

I'm trying to figure out a good way to test all of this. It's going to require tests to make sure the script itself performs the job assigned, as well as that both the code using the new notation and the generated code both actually perform their job and compile without error.

Also, we're going to want to make sure the documentation for the new feature gets added.

These things don't all have to be on you, necessarily, but they're important for a significant feature like this.

[jonhenneberg]

@AJIOB and @mvandervoord Was this abandoned for some other/better solution ?

I'm interested in the feature, and was considering adding something to our local fork of Unity, but would rather add it to the upstream project, so if it wasn't dropped due to some other design or an incompatibility, I was contemplating brushing this PR off, getting it updated and looking at what could be done to add tests to it.

[mvandervoord]

I just haven't had time to get back on this, unfortunately. :(

[jonhenneberg]

So the idea was not abandoned, so updating it (fix the conflicts) and adding tests wouldn't be a wasted effort.

Then I might try and find the time to look at it

[mvandervoord]

@jonhenneberg -- it would not be a wasted effort. In fact, it would be much appreciated. :)

[AJIOB]

This changes were already merged while PR #685, closing the current PR