On 03/05/13 11:00, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> wrote: >> On 02/05/13 11:45, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/05/13 12:40, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:48 PM, ryuan Choi <ryuan.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> While digging some elementary bug recently, I think that elementary >>>>>> needs >>>>>> unit testing framework like other EFL core modules in order to prevent >>>>>> regressions or understand what commits fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we have chance to introduce check for elementary? >>>>>> >>>>>> Initial commit is here. >>>>>> https://phab.enlightenment.org/D91 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wish we had exactness integrated... but that would be a start. Will >>>>> do some push before the end of the week. >>>> >>>> >>>> As Cedric has mentioned. >>>> >>>> Anyhow, replied to your patch. >>> >>> >>> Yes exactness will do an awesome job. >>> But I think we still need test cases as well to check the api safety, >>> return value check, regression test, and etc. >>> Does exactness cover test cases? >>> >> >> Exactness is a pixel perfect test suite. It just checks the pixels are the >> same. In fact, elementary could be completely broken in many ways, but as >> long as the frames we "shoot" are good, exactness won't fail. >> It does however detect segfaults and etc. >> >> The "problem" I have with "make check" in elementary's case, is that there's >> really nothing to test. Only NULL checks and the like. And even there, you >> have many paths you can't easily get to because of elm's reliance on >> timers/idlers and generally the main loop. >> >> You can do those, but it won't be nice, and won't be worth it. If you do >> them with exactness on the other hand, it'll actually work nicely. >> > > You are right and I totally agree with you but I don't think exactness > will cover 100% elementary use cases. > Don't get me wrong. You know I love exactness :) I have been using > exactness from day 1. > > Even though having useless test cases are wasting of time, we need > test cases for some use cases. > That's why I want to have both. > But we should keep the test cases short and simple as much as possible. > > Thanks. >
Oh, let me clarify, I do think "make check" is needed. I just think we need some inspiration in the form of tests. :) I.e I think the patch should add some tests as well. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
