On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:28:16PM +0930, David Kettler wrote: > "John J. Foerch" <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:11:07PM +0930, David Kettler wrote: > >> This provides summary results such as the following: > >> > >> % conkeror -q -e 'url_remoting_fn = load;' $PWD/tests/simple/*.js -f > >> walnut-summarize > >> ... > >> Totals: 58 run, 0 failed in 15 suites > >> > > > > Very interesting idea. Could walnut define a command-line switch, instead > > of providing an interactive command? > > Sure, but I wonder just what you have in mind. > > We could have an argument that generates the summary: > > % conkeror -q -e 'url_remoting_fn = load;' $PWD/tests/simple/*.js > -walnut-summarize > > I don't see how that's an improvement though. And it's a bit less > flexible; you can only use it on the command line, not in an interactive > session.
Is walnut-summarize useful as an interactive command? Its only purpose is to be used from the command line. I think making it available via M-x or key bindings would only be so much clutter. > > We could have an argument that runs all the following args as tests and > then generates the summary: > > % conkeror -q -walnut-run $PWD/tests/simple/*.js > > Which has the advantage of being shorter. It would need special support > for such an argument slurping handler. It might confuse users if they > try to follow that with other args. > What if this hypothetical -walnut-run option could accept either a filename or a directory name as its argument? When a directory was given, it would load *.js from that directory. Would that also address the other questions you posted about the deprecation of load_rc? -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
