On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:41 +0200, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > On Tue, 23 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > >> Peter Vreman wrote: > >>>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >>>>>>>>> 1. fpcunit didn't exist at the time the FPC tests were > >>>>>>>>> implemented. > >>>>>>>>> 2. Using FPCunit creates a dependency on it. The tests can run > >>>>>>>>> mostly > >>>>>>>>> with only the system unit... > >>>>>>>> Which dependencies? Maybe they can be reduced and a fpcunit can be > >>>>>>>> added to tests? > >>>>>>> fpcunit depends on not so much, but I want to avoid using the FCL in > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> testsuite... Creating a copy seems rather silly too... > >>>>>> You can create an svn:external to important that one from the fcl > >>>>>> without > >>>>>> creating a real copy. > >>>>> Good idea. > >>>>> > >>>>> Should we convert existing tests to fpcunit ? > >>>> No, too much work, no real gain :) > >>> > >>> I agree here. New tests can be added with fpcunit. But the basic > >>> principe > >>> of using the halt and the dotest program needs to stay in place. > >> > >> I see no problem to execute "high" level tests using fpcunit. Maybe we > >> need to > >> redesign our tests structure a little bit because with the current > >> test system > >> we can't test fcl, packages and friends. > > > > If we want to do this, there are 2 options: > > > > 1. Include the test programs with the packages/fcl/rtl whatever. > > 2. Use a completely separate test directory, as it is now. > > > > Personally, I am slightly in favour of 2, because 1 will require > > us to put the fpcunit in the RTL. 1. will require a more thorough > > rewrite of the test suite... > > Either: > tests can be modelled after fpc/ i.e. containing also rtl/fcl/packages etc. > tests go in each dir > > With some more makefile magic testing can be limited either to rtl/compiler or > extended to everything.
I should use option 2 - add a directory to tests for the fpcunit-tests. Then, depending on some switch you can turn of the compilation of groups of tests. Like only compile the RTL-tests, or compile RTL, FCL and DB- tests. That's easily done with the example i've send to the list. Also, if people want to do that, they can use the Lazarus-fpcunit- runner. They only need to include the right include-files. But you can only do this for the high-level tests, offcourse. I woudn't change the current tests... > I'am quite sure that fpcunit based tests can be easily extended to return an > error level <>0 in case of an error so they fit into the current testsuite. In > the worst case we add some postprocessor program checking all xml output and > writing the errors and exiting with 1. Maybe dotest could be even extended > with > little effort to parse the xml output of a test which is marked with e.g. %XML > and write appropriate info to the logs. The fpc-test runner is only 8 lines of code. 'If errorcount>0 then exit (errorcount);' or something like that is very easily added. It's also possible to change the output to a better readable log. The advantage is that the user himself can choose if he wants XML, Logfile or graphical output. And adding the results to the testsuite-db can be done the same way as it's done now. Joost. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
