On 1/17/06 9:58 PM, "Gary King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> My immediate problem is I don't know what makes a "good" unit test >> tool. FiveAM has been characterized as being more "lisp-like", a >> couple take after JUnit, RT has been around roughly since dirt was >> invented, and a few other tidbits have trickled down but that still >> doesn't tell me what a "good" framework is. Can someone who has used >> (or written ;-) one or more comment on what logical "figures of merit" >> might be? > > I'm thinking that it would be a Good Idea to take a small chunk of > code and write tests for it in each of the existing systems. ideally, > the code will be interesting enough to exercise the envelope (I hate > flabby envelopes).
One other thing you might want to investigate or report on is whether or how those systems measure test coverage. At the real job, we use a combination of rt and Waters' cover package for this purpose; however, the cover package is not ANSI compliant because it relies on mutating literal objects created by the reader. -- Brian Mastenbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
