Iox #454 enhance cmd line parser tests

[marthtz]

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

1. Branch follows the naming format (iox-#123-this-is-a-branch)
2. Commits messages are according to this guideline
   • Commit messages have the issue ID (iox-#123 commit text)
   • Commit messages are signed (git commit -s)
   • Commit author matches Eclipse Contributor Agreement (and ECA is signed)
3. Update the PR title
   • Follow the same conventions as for commit messages
   • Link to the relevant issue
4. Relevant issues are linked
5. Add sensible notes for the reviewer
6. All checks have passed (except task-list-completed)
7. Assign PR to reviewer

Notes for Reviewer

Adding some more tests to test_roudi_cmd_line_parser_config_file_option. Code contributed by @JimmyBch .

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• Code according to our coding style and naming conventions
• Unit tests have been written for new behavior
• Public API changes are documented via doxygen
• Copyright owner are updated in the changed files
• PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

1. All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

Post-review Checklist for the Eclipse Committer

1. All checkboxes in the PR checklist are checked or crossed out
2. Merge

References

• Contributes to Enhancing Tests in Roudi #454

[marthtz]

Question: Testing -c/--config-file with an invalid file/filepath doesn't trigger any response. It continues without error. Is that intended?

[dkroenke]

Question: Testing -c/--config-file with an invalid file/filepath doesn't trigger any response. It continues without error. Is that intended?

When cpptoml is used then you get an error like this:

terminate called after throwing an instance of 'cpptoml::parse_exception'
  what():  /etc/iceoryx/roudi_config.toml could not be opened for parsing
Aborted

An additional check for directly is of course possible (by trying to open the file with the FileReader class and checking with isOpen()) but feels a bit redundant because the config file parser already do that job. On the other side, cpptoml throws here an exception which we should avoid and it is good practice to handle faulty values as early as possible.

[elfenpiff]

@JimmyBch could you please adjust your commit messages in the future so that they state what has been done. "fix review findings" is technically correct but it is hard to trace for future developer what that meant. A better alternative could be for instance "replace EXPECT_TRUE with ASSERT_TRUE to avoid undefined behavior in test"

[JimmyBch]

@JimmyBch could you please adjust your commit messages in the future so that they state what has been done. "fix review findings" is technically correct but it is hard to trace for future developer what that meant. A better alternative could be for instance "replace EXPECT_TRUE with ASSERT_TRUE to avoid undefined behavior in test"

Yes, I will, Sorry bad habits.

[JimmyBch]

@mossmaurice You forgot to sign your commit :)

[mossmaurice]

LGTM

Review findings addressed