On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Robert Goldman wrote: > Daniel Herring wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Robert Goldman wrote: >>> Gary King wrote: >>>> Hi Robert, >>>> >>>>> I don't believe that this is a general solution, for two reasons: >>>> I agree that it isn't a general solution especially since there is no >>>> interface/API for clients to do anything with an ASDF operation! It >>>> might, however, be a small step in the right direction. >>> An alternative solution would be to provide a :stream or :filename init >>> argument for the test-op operation class and bind a dynamic variable >>> around every perform, making the stream or filename available for >>> writing.... >> >> Why serialize the data? Could we design a structured API to be used by >> other tools? ... >> Of course ASDF doesn't need to reinvent testing; there are plenty of >> existing frameworks to choose from. >> http://www.cliki.net/test_framework >> > > What I am after is an ASDF test-op that will adapt as well as possible > to the widest possible set of testing frameworks. I agree that we > should not attempt to reinvent testing. > > That is why I have been suggesting that we provide a test operation that > binds a stream --- because most of the test frameworks I have worked > with provide a test report, rather than returning results. > > I don't believe that having the test-op return a result will work, given > the current ASDF execution model. ...
Given that, how about deprecating/removing test-op? Then people can continue to simply load sysname-test.asd and run tests however they want. I see value in creating a widely accepted testing framework. I don't see the benefit in simply binding a stream variable. Later, Daniel _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
