> Nice idea, but let me play devil's advocate for a second, to make sure we
> are clear-headed about this. Just to go over our terms, our smallest
> primitive is the "test", and tests are grouped in "suites". What we are
> really getting at here is adding a new type---a group of
suites---which on
> the surface sounds self-contradictory. Is there a parallel for this in
> other testing frameworks, or did we fail in some basic assumption about
> how testing should work, that we find ourselves needing to reinvent unit
> testing?
I don't have much experience with other widely used test frameworks,
but this does seem reasonable. The primitive "test" tests some
individual aspect of the program; the test "suite" aggregates the test
results for a unit of the program. We then want to be able to
aggregate the results of the unit test suites for the whole program.
Note that the way I've extended walnut_totals is (at least partially)
recursive, so we won't need to keep adding layers.
Here's a couple of examples that have something similar to this extra
layer.
The git test suite is structured rather like the conkeror tests in
that groups of tests are written in files that can either be run
individually, or all the tests can be run, with an aggregation of the
results.
http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=t/README;hb=master
http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=t/aggregate-results.sh;hb=master
In cunit one writes tests in a suite and register the suites with a
test registry.
http://cunit.sourceforge.net/doc/introduction.html#usage
regards, David.
_______________________________________________
Conkeror mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
