On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:05:39 +0000, David Edmondson <d...@dme.org> wrote: > What's the general feeling about this approach to producing tests for > the emacs UI? (That is, code the test in a .el file and call the > relevant function(s) from the test harness.)
I think it's a nice idea. It seems much cleaner than writing ever more complicated code in the command line. There was another recent idea to actually write the python tests in python, if I remember correctly. It all seems to make sense to me. Bash is convenient, but there's no reason we need to be monogamous, especially when there are ways, with your technique, to call individual "embedded" tests from the command line and still take advantage of the bells and whistles of full test infrastructure. > It makes it simpler to develop and maintain the test (because you can do > more work with traditional emacs support for editing elisp), but might > make interpreting failures more difficult (the test harness mostly just > reports 'failed'). It is really nice to see diffs on failure, actually, to get a sense of what exactly went wrong. Is it possible to have some sort of standard report to stdout that could provide more info? jamie.
pgp5ASIpNm8V8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
