Reinier Lamers <[email protected]> added the comment: Op woensdag 03 november 2010 14:06 schreef Eric Kow: > So original submitter (me) is a bit nervous about this, and a reviewer > too, so maybe we should just reject this for now and come back to it > when the re-org dust has settled. > > Note-taking for posterity > > Pro: > - ability to test non-exported functions > > Con: > - encourages whitebox rather than blackbox testing
And adds a dependency on QuickCheck and HUnit and all that stuff. Which may cause dependency problems for people who just want to use darcs. So I vote against merging tests into the modules they test. > When the dust settles, one alternative form of juggling I might consider > is renaming Darcs.Test.X to Test.Darcs.X. This seems a bit silly, I > realise. The only goal behind this proposal is to make it possible to > have a parallel hierarchy including non-Darcs modules, so Test.Lcs and > Test.ByteStringUtils for example. But maybe the testing stuff is > transparent enough as it is. I believe Test.* is used for libraries that provide testing tools, like Test.QuickCheck, Test.HUnit, Test.Framework etc. But darcs is not a testing tool. Moreover, these test modules are a part of darcs. So I think Darcs.Test is really more appropriate. __________________________________ Darcs bug tracker <[email protected]> <http://bugs.darcs.net/patch430> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
