emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
To: Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Christian Egli <christian.egli@sbs.ch>
Subject: Re: Re: Test framework needed
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:42:19 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87hbakp9hw.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4D933E9E.7030907@gmail.com

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> On 30/03/11 16:18, Christian Egli wrote:
>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/UnitTesting
>>> Am I right in assuming, that all of the possible test frameworks would
>>> require org files and the expected output (tengle, export to ...,
>>> agenda, ...)? In this case, would it make sense to start collecting
>>> those, as they can easily be user contributed, consequently representing
>>> a cross section of the use cases (even not intended use cases)?
>> Before you go too far with this; Orgmode already contains a unit test
>> suite. Look at the README in the testing directory
>> (http://orgmode.org/w/?p=org-mode.git;a=blob_plain;f=testing/README.org;hb=HEAD)
> But it does not look as if it is used very often... There are not many
> test org files, and I did not se anything which compares the resulting
> exported / tangle  file with an expected output?
> Please correct me if I am missing something.

You are correct that the existing test suite needs some attention and
some more tests.  Just a general commitment to convert problem reports
from the mailing list into unit tests should be a step in the right

However the existing test suite (while under populated) is the result of
multiple previous discussion of this nature on the mailing list, and I
think that abandoning the existing infrastructure would be a step in the
wrong direction.

> This suite should actually be updated with effectively each patch which
> introduces new features and run after each patch.

Agreed, in a perfect world...

> So is it only necessary to add meat to this framework?

Yes, I believe the best way forward would be to add tests to the
existing framework.

Best -- Eric

> Rainer

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-30 22:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-30 13:01 Test framework needed Rainer M Krug
2011-03-30 13:46 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2011-03-30 13:56   ` Rainer M Krug
2011-03-30 14:11     ` Eric Abrahamsen
2011-03-30 14:22       ` Rainer M Krug
2011-03-30 14:26       ` MidLifeXis at PerlMonks
2011-03-30 14:18     ` Christian Egli
2011-03-30 14:30       ` Rainer M Krug
2011-03-30 15:13         ` Manuel Giraud
2011-03-30 20:14           ` Aankhen
2011-03-30 21:39             ` Eric Schulte
2011-03-30 21:42         ` Eric Schulte [this message]
2011-03-31  0:19           ` Suvayu Ali
2011-03-31  3:40             ` Eric Schulte
2011-03-31  7:15               ` Rainer M Krug

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://www.orgmode.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87hbakp9hw.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=schulte.eric@gmail.com \
    --cc=christian.egli@sbs.ch \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
    --cc=r.m.krug@gmail.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox


This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).