On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Francois Gouget wrote: > That's true on Unix because sh, perl, and C executables will just > work. But if some of your tests are sh scripts you will have trouble > running them on Windows.
Yes, but nobody really proposes writing tests in Bourne-shell. In fact, you can't easily do it wether you run under Unix or Windows. What I was saying is that the execution engine should not really matter, generally speaking. In practice, there are only 3 choices: 1. Native executable (most likely C based) 2. Perl script 3. Python script In all this cases we can package things such that the *exact* same tests run under both Wine & Windows. In all this cases, it is possible to make it trivial for the tester to run the tests, without them knowing what language has been used to write the actual tests. > We probably won't often need to run all the tests in Windows, but I > can imagine that it would still be necessary to check behavior on > different setups: in 16bpp vs. 32bpp, in the english vs. the russian vs. > chinese version, with IE 5 installed or not installed, etc. So we need a > framework that makes it easy to run all the tests on Windows. Since sh > scripts tend to invoke a ton of Unix tools like expr, awk, sed, perl, > this seems not to be a good basis for writing tests. Again, you will not be able to easily invoke Win32 APIs from sh anyway, so this is not really an option. -- Dimi.
