Hey Brad, I agree with you that without having clear idea about the design of testing framework we should not dive into the implementation of the features that I have requested. Although our idea for creating these issues were not just to get help in implementation but more to discuss about the unit test. I and Lydia are in continuous discussion about the design of testing framework and we also have thought about the module based tests. I think it will be good if we could look at solutions for both module-based and class-based tests. We should be looking for all type of users and as an initial implementation giving both feature would be very helpful for the developers.
Talking about module based tests I feel we may need a function that can help us to return all the funtion of a module as strings and another function which can call function given the name of function(string). These are some of the feature I think we may need. I am sure we will come across other useful requirements as we proceed with the discussion. Thank you, Krishna On Thu, 23 May 2019, 4:23 am Brad Chamberlain, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Krishna — > > Welcome to the project! > > I think that the issues themselves are reasonable requests, though I also > think there are some challenges to making the two issues you filed today > be sufficient to support unit testing given other related challenges, like > the ones that Michael raised in the comments of #8326. > > I also wanted to mention that when we discussed various approaches to unit > testing as a team a few weeks ago, there were definitely split opinions as > to whether or not a class+method-based approach is preferable. > Specifically, since Chapel isn't a pure OO language and significant codes > can be written without using classes, there was a desire among some of the > team members for a way to write unit tests that did not require creating a > class. And if we had such a way, it raises the question for me as to > whether that would be sufficient to test code that did use classes as > well. > > The combination of those two things would give me pause in diving into > these implementation tasks without a clear picture of what the unit > testing framework looks like, how it would work, and buy-in that it's what > the team and users want. I know that Ben was wrestling with these > questions before leaving the other week, but am not clear how far he got. > > Best wishes, > -Brad > > > On Wed, 22 May 2019, Krishna Kumar Dey wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > I am Krishna Kumar Dey, GSoC'19 student developer where I am working on > *Unit > > Test Framework* for Chapel. While discussing with my mentors I came > across > > the reflection module that I will be using for the project. This module > > lacks a few functionalities which we need for the development of the > > framework. I have created issues for the same. And I need your opinion > > regarding these feature requests. > > > > Issues: > > > > - Proposed support for Reflection functions that get number of methods > > of a class. #13069 <https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/13069 > > > > - Proposed support for Reflection functions that get name of method of > a > > class. #13068 <https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/13068> > > - Call methods from method name in string #8326 > > <https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/13069> > > > > > > -- > > Thank you, > > Krishna Kumar Dey > > > > <https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/13069> > >
_______________________________________________ Chapel-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
