At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:31:20 -0700, Eric Schulte wrote: > > [1 <text/plain (7bit)>] > David Maus <dm...@ictsoc.de> writes: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600, > > Eric Schulte wrote: > >> Hi David, > >> > >> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when > >> dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely > >> important. I think some version of the above would be worthwhile if it > >> could be done in a file-wide manner (as are the current dependency > >> checks) and wouldn't require duplicating the dependency check or > >> changing every test form individually. Perhaps a file-local-variable > >> could be used to expect failures for every form defined in the file? > > > > I tried the approach with a file-local variable but it didn't work > > out: A macro can be expanded at any time, i.e. looks like there is no > > way to obtain a reference to the buffer where the macro is defined at > > expansion time. > > > > But finally came up with this one: > > > > Nice macro, > > The only downside I see is the requirement to wrap every single deftest > form which (to me) is too much overhead for too little payoff. How > about the following which will register a failing test for each file of > tests not loaded due to missing dependencies.
The macro operates not just on a single `ert-deftest' form, but all deftests in BODY. It kind-of works like a file local variable. The current solution does its job, too -- so there's no need to use this macro. Getting feedback about tests not run because of missing dependencies is all I every wanted. Best, -- David -- OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6 Jabber.... dmj...@jabber.org Email..... dm...@ictsoc.de
pgpkNkO2Z5yxV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
