On Dec 28, 2006, at 5:31 AM, Egor Pasko wrote:
So, I think, these tests should go to different place, not to
regression test suite. Right?
Good point.
Initially the intention was to call it JIT Unit Tests. But what can
stop us from tracking regressions with tests based on this idea?
Let's look at the variants where to include the framework:
1. smoke
2. c-unit
3. kernel
4. regression
5. harmony unit
6. forgot something?
So, for the moment (4) seems most natural. Maybe, some tests to
include into (2) and some to (4). I do not insist, just want to know
your opinion for now.
TO be clear, 5 is "classlibrary tests", which I think should remain
different. c-unit are also different, because it's a totally
different testing framework (c-based). Now, that leaves smoke,
kernel and regression.
Smoke and kernel should be able to be combined. Smoke just seems to
be tests where someone wanted to write their own testing framework.
Regresssion - I do understand where Tim is coming from in later
messages in this thread, but I don't actually mind slapping tests
that show reported bugs into a separate category called "regression",
because they probably are more complicated than unit tests or even
general functional tests, and a maybe poke at weird corner cases or
effects of multiple interacting systems. It would be interesting to
see if our regression tests are finding things that unit tests should
have...
geir
