On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Rogan Creswick cresw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel ttue...@gmail.com wrote:
There are a few frameworks that provide limited degrees of this
functionality. I've recently added to test-framework so that the
results can be
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to build a test suite as its own executable, but to avoid
the problem of granularity by producing an output file detailing the
success or failure of individual tests and any relevant error
Hello community!
I've been working on a proposal for Google Summer of Code 2010 to work
on improving Cabal's test support, as described on the Haskell SoC
Trac [1]. Today I'm looking for feedback to see if what I intend is
what people want/need. As you read this, I kindly ask that you
consider:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel ttue...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to build a test suite as its own executable, but to avoid
the problem of granularity by producing an output file detailing the
success or failure of individual tests and any relevant error
messages. The format
Thomas Tuegel ttue...@gmail.com writes:
There have been two separate suggestions (of which I am aware) of ways
to integrate tests into Cabal. One is to build the tests into their
own executable which uses an error code on exit to indicate test
failure.
I personally prefer this suggestion:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Rogan Creswick cresw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel ttue...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, the package author need only run:
$ ./Setup configure
$ ./Setup build
$ ./Setup test
My general feeling has been that Setup
Jason Dagit da...@codersbase.com writes:
What I don't understand is how it's possible for the discrepancy to happen.
It's as if ./Setup and cabal-install use different algorithms for
dependency resolution, but as I understand it, both should be using the
Cabal library for that. My only other
