On 21 May 2011 15:20, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> data Test = forall i r t. Testlike i r t => Test TestName t
> | TestGroup TestName [Test]
> | PlusTestOptions TestOptions Test
FYI, I recently added another alternative:
| BuildTest (IO Test)
The main purpose is to support a combin
1 patch for repository http://darcs.haskell.org/cabal:
Mon May 23 20:45:34 BST 2011 hask...@benmachine.co.uk
* Add missing space in QA message
New patches:
[Add missing space in QA message
hask...@benmachine.co.uk**20110523194534
Ignore-this: f822926bda9cf9b479faf4f70b67590a
] hunk ./Distri
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> I'm worried about generalizing from a single instance (i.e. GHC).
>
> If we'd like to add some flexibility we could allow tests to carry
> arbitrary tags:
>
> class TestInstance a where
> tags :: a -> [String]
>
> Test agents could use tags
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Duncan Coutts
wrote:
> data TestInstance
> = TestInstance {
> run :: IO TestResult
> name :: String,
>
> concurrentSafe :: Bool,
> expectedFail :: Bool,
>
> options :: [OptionDescr]
> setOption
#811: test-suite type not detected
+---
Reporter: basvandijk |Owner: ttuegel
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: normal |Milestone: Cabal-1.10
Component: Cabal
#847: Cabal ignores multiple test options given with "--test-option{,s}"
+---
Reporter: ttuegel|Owner: ttuegel
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: normal |Mileston
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:54:24PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:16:12PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > >
> > > The generated paths module has to compile with the target
> > > compiler, including older ghc
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:16:12PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> >
> > The generated paths module has to compile with the target
> > compiler, including older ghc
>
> Why? People who really are stuck with GHC 6.8 already have a Cabal t
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Duncan Coutts
wrote:
> So in your other email you suggest a simple attribute system where we
> use a set of named tags, but with no meanings that a generic test agent
> will know about, just to be used as way for users to filter on tests.
>
> Then here you've got a
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 15:39 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Duncan Coutts
> wrote:
> > Here's the equivalent bit of my design (the TestResult is the same):
> >
> > data TestInstance
> > = TestInstance {
> > run:: IO TestResult
> > name
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Duncan Coutts
> >
> > T5636 (ghci, opt, prof)
> >
> > So what if in addition to this system of test options (inputs) we had
> > a similar declarative system for describing test attributes. What
> > mig
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Duncan Coutts
wrote:
> Actually, we need more than this. We need to be able to do IO to
> enumerate the tests in the group.
>
> Consider the ghc tests suite. It is an interesting and reasonably
> large scale example. I think we ought to make sure that our test suit
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Duncan Coutts
wrote:
> Here's the equivalent bit of my design (the TestResult is the same):
>
> data TestInstance
> = TestInstance {
> run :: IO TestResult
> name :: String,
>
> concurrentSafe :: Bool,
> expectedFail
13 matches
Mail list logo
