On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:32:23AM +0200, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: > I've tried to modify the way test works, too, I've concluded it's very > messy. It's not very modular, so you have to copy-paste parts of the > original and do your modifications there. It gave me the idea to write a > new test egg with the same simple API but where it somehow was easier to > modify the output like you describe. > > Is your proposal to create a new test-egg-inspired test unit in core?
Yes. > > Anyway, your test would probably succeed even if the pointer type would > > be incorrect. It would just compile with a warning (which gets lost > > in the noise). If you change the index to 1 or 2, it might be a better > > test since it would fail when the pointer type would be anything larger > > than a char due to the address calculation ending up somewhere beyond > > the string. Additionally, we could compile the test with -Wall -Werror > > for example, to catch C type errors. Would you care to write a complete > > patch to add FFI tests? You can mail it with "git format-patch" > > Of course, how silly of me! That should have been x[1]='B' and change input > to "AxC". Writing good tests, I guess, is always a challenge. It's never easy :) > I could put some tests down, but I wouldn't know where to start. Well, the test you posted is a good start. Just work your way through the various type specifiers. > What would be "complete"? Don't worry about being absolutely complete; we never do that anywhere. It's good to have at least the basics covered, we can always add more tests later. Besides, running the tests should not take ages. > Perhaps we could put this on the agenda for T-DOSE? I think > that could be fun! Sure, we could work on that together. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers