Re: org-html link building diff

Re: org-html link building diff

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

> Hi Tom,
>
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:01 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
>
>>
>> The changes are essentially made and pass my tests now, there's mostly
housekeeping now: pull, merge, push.
>>
>>> Yes.  Send me your name on repo.or.cz and I'll add push for you.
Please create your own branch and stay on it.
>>
>> It is "Tehom".
>
> I have added you.

Oops, when I went to push, I realized that I had capitalized that but it's
apparently not capitalized on repo.or.cz.  It's "tehom".

My branch is called "tehom-master" and the branch that treats link export
based on it is called html-export-refactor-build-link

Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: org-html link building diff

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:01 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The changes are essentially made and pass my tests now, there's  
>>> mostly
> housekeeping now: pull, merge, push.
>>>
>>>> Yes.  Send me your name on repo.or.cz and I'll add push for you.
> Please create your own branch and stay on it.
>>>
>>> It is "Tehom".
>>
>> I have added you.
>
> Oops, when I went to push, I realized that I had capitalized that  
> but it's
> apparently not capitalized on repo.or.cz.  It's "tehom".

OK, I changed that.

>
> My branch is called "tehom-master" and the branch that treats link  
> export
> based on it is called html-export-refactor-build-link

Will check it out later next week.  Thanks!

- Carsten

Re: org-html link building diff

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Tom,

what is the status of this development?  Ready for prime time?  If  
yes, can you please rebase to master and send me the pointer to the  
branch again?

Or is there still stuff unclear?  Can I help?

Thanks!

- Carsten

On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:01 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The changes are essentially made and pass my tests now, there's  
>>> mostly
> housekeeping now: pull, merge, push.
>>>
>>>> Yes.  Send me your name on repo.or.cz and I'll add push for you.
> Please create your own branch and stay on it.
>>>
>>> It is "Tehom".
>>
>> I have added you.
>
> Oops, when I went to push, I realized that I had capitalized that  
> but it's
> apparently not capitalized on repo.or.cz.  It's "tehom".
>
> My branch is called "tehom-master" and the branch that treats link  
> export
> based on it is called html-export-refactor-build-link
>
> Tom Breton (Tehom)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

- Carsten

Re: org-html link building diff

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

> Hi Tom,
>
> what is the status of this development?  Ready for prime time?  If
> yes, can you please rebase to master and send me the pointer to the
> branch again?

I believe it is ready, though I haven't heard any feedback.  I pushed the
changes on about the 4th of may.

> Or is there still stuff unclear?  Can I help?

Maybe.  I hadn't done this before, so some feedback and (if needed)
correction would be appreciated.

I had to change the url to git+ssh so it would authenticate me, but when I
pushed, it was visible in the public (non-ssh) git repo, so I thought it
was visible to everybody.  Isn't it?

I thought I had done what you wanted by creating a branch for all my
changes ever (tehom-master) and rebasing the org-html link changes on that
(html-export-refactor-build-link).  Is that working for you?  If not, how
can I fix it?

Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: org-html link building diff

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Tom,

I have now taken a brief look at the html-export-refactor-build-link  
patch.  I see that in addition to changing org-html, it create a new  
file, with tests.  While it is great that you have defined tests, this  
meant that I cannot simply apply he patch to the master without making  
unwanted changes.

If we build a test strucure, it should be in a completely separate  
directory, not in, for example, the lisp directory.

Could you please make me a branch which contains only the changes that  
would go into org?

And if you want to provide a test framework for Org, pleas, by all  
means, go ahead, build it and document it so that we can all use it.

Maybe we could make a "tests" subdirectory in the git repo that would  
contain it...

Thanks

- Carsten

On May 15, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> what is the status of this development?  Ready for prime time?  If
>> yes, can you please rebase to master and send me the pointer to the
>> branch again?
>
> I believe it is ready, though I haven't heard any feedback.  I  
> pushed the
> changes on about the 4th of may.
>
>> Or is there still stuff unclear?  Can I help?
>
> Maybe.  I hadn't done this before, so some feedback and (if needed)
> correction would be appreciated.
>
> I had to change the url to git+ssh so it would authenticate me, but  
> when I
> pushed, it was visible in the public (non-ssh) git repo, so I  
> thought it
> was visible to everybody.  Isn't it?
>
> I thought I had done what you wanted by creating a branch for all my
> changes ever (tehom-master) and rebasing the org-html link changes  
> on that
> (html-export-refactor-build-link).  Is that working for you?  If  
> not, how
> can I fix it?
>
> Tom Breton (Tehom)
>
>

- Carsten

Re: org-html link building diff

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 15, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> what is the status of this development?  Ready for prime time?  If
>> yes, can you please rebase to master and send me the pointer to the
>> branch again?
>
> I believe it is ready, though I haven't heard any feedback.  I  
> pushed the
> changes on about the 4th of may.
>
>> Or is there still stuff unclear?  Can I help?
>
> Maybe.  I hadn't done this before, so some feedback and (if needed)
> correction would be appreciated.
>
> I had to change the url to git+ssh so it would authenticate me, but  
> when I
> pushed, it was visible in the public (non-ssh) git repo, so I  
> thought it
> was visible to everybody.  Isn't it?


Yes.  It is the same repo - ssh access allows you to push, that is all.
>
> I thought I had done what you wanted by creating a branch for all my
> changes ever (tehom-master) and rebasing the org-html link changes  
> on that
> (html-export-refactor-build-link).  Is that working for you?  If  
> not, how
> can I fix it?

I think the best would be to have individual topic branches that you  
devellpp for yourself, on your machine at home, and that you only push  
them to the repo when you want others or me to look at them.

- Carsten

Re: org-html link building diff

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

Hi, Carsten.  The new changes are pushed as
tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link

I couldn't undo the basing onto tehom-master, try though I might.
Something to do with intermediate changes that I couldn't fast-forward
and that I probably edited wrong.  So I made a separate branch,
tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link, which is now pushed to the
repo.  So tehom-master and html-export-refactor-build-link are already
obsolete.

I moved the tests into top-level directory testing, as you asked.  I'm
going to write a separate post describing the test conventions I use.

Now a question: IIUC you want a branch that has no tests, that
"contains only the changes that would go into org".  Since I develop
tests and code at about the same time (tests slightly before code),
I'm not sure how to arrange the branching in a maintainable way.

I could of course make a one-time branch that just removes the testing
directory.  But then what happens for any future fixes?  Seems like
each time I'd have to rebase that branch and pick thru changes and
make it discard each change that deals with testing/.  It seems hard
to maintain.

Tom Breton (Tehom)

Test-file naming conventions - mine and suggested for org

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

In developing emtest, I've given some thought to conventions for test
files.  My convention is that:

   * tests of foo.el go into foo/tests.el

     * With feature name foo/tests

   * Any shared testhelp goes into foo/testhelp.el

     * With feature name foo/testhelp

   * Example files go in foo/examples/

   * Alternative, they can all be placed in another directory
     hierarchy, like "org/testing/foo/tests.el" as long as
     "org/testing" is in the load-path (emacs doesn't know the
     difference).

I welcome any comments on this convention.  I considered it carefully;
I wrote a small document considering the alternatives and chose this
as best.  But it's young enough that it could be changed, were strong
arguments made towards some alternative.

        Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: org-html link building diff

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 18, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

>
> Hi, Carsten.  The new changes are pushed as
> tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link
>
> I couldn't undo the basing onto tehom-master, try though I might.
> Something to do with intermediate changes that I couldn't fast-forward
> and that I probably edited wrong.  So I made a separate branch,
> tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link, which is now pushed to the
> repo.  So tehom-master and html-export-refactor-build-link are already
> obsolete.
>
> I moved the tests into top-level directory testing, as you asked.  I'm
> going to write a separate post describing the test conventions I use.
>
> Now a question: IIUC you want a branch that has no tests, that
> "contains only the changes that would go into org".  Since I develop
> tests and code at about the same time (tests slightly before code),
> I'm not sure how to arrange the branching in a maintainable way.

Hi Tom,

If we decide to use your emtests framework for Org on a brader basis,  
then there would be no reason to have a branch free of tests.  This is  
only necessary because I am supposed to apply your patches, but  
without the testing framework at the moment.

Maybe we should just go ahead and start using emtest for Org-mode.   
Why don't you go ahead and propose this in a mail to emacs-orgmode.   
Lets see if there is any resistance by people who understand more  
about testing than I do.  If not, we go ahead and do it.

I would still prefer to have the tests in a separate directory if your  
package allows to do so.  Hope that this is no problem?

I guess all the emtest code itself would then have to go into the org- 
mode git repo as well, so that we can use it?

And we should develop a make target that will run all tests.

- Carsten


>
> I could of course make a one-time branch that just removes the testing
> directory.  But then what happens for any future fixes?  Seems like
> each time I'd have to rebase that branch and pick thru changes and
> make it discard each change that deals with testing/.  It seems hard
> to maintain.
>
> Tom Breton (Tehom)
>
>

- Carsten

Re: org-html link building diff

[Sebastian Rose]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
> On May 18, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi, Carsten.  The new changes are pushed as
>> tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link
>>
>> I couldn't undo the basing onto tehom-master, try though I might.
>> Something to do with intermediate changes that I couldn't fast-forward
>> and that I probably edited wrong.  So I made a separate branch,
>> tehom-html-export-refactor-build-link, which is now pushed to the
>> repo.  So tehom-master and html-export-refactor-build-link are already
>> obsolete.
>>
>> I moved the tests into top-level directory testing, as you asked.  I'm
>> going to write a separate post describing the test conventions I use.
>>
>> Now a question: IIUC you want a branch that has no tests, that
>> "contains only the changes that would go into org".  Since I develop
>> tests and code at about the same time (tests slightly before code),
>> I'm not sure how to arrange the branching in a maintainable way.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> If we decide to use your emtests framework for Org on a brader basis, then there
> would be no reason to have a branch free of tests.  This is  only necessary
> because I am supposed to apply your patches, but  without the testing framework
> at the moment.
>
> Maybe we should just go ahead and start using emtest for Org-mode.  Why don't
> you go ahead and propose this in a mail to emacs-orgmode.   Lets see if there is
> any resistance by people who understand more  about testing than I do.  If not,
> we go ahead and do it.


We had that discussion here aleady, and the result is: we have no test
framework to work with.

Better just do it ;)


  Sebastian

Re: Test-file naming conventions - mine and suggested for org

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Tom,

as you may or may not have noticed, by merging your patch I actually  
have created the new directory "testing" in the org-mode git repository.

Can I invite you to build this out into a testing system for Org-mode?

Basically, I think, this would mean adding your testing package (is it  
called emt?)
and documenting for other how to create and run tests like the ones  
which you have in
testing/org-html/tests.el

Cheers

- Carsten

On May 18, 2010, at 3:01 AM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

> In developing emtest, I've given some thought to conventions for test
> files.  My convention is that:
>
>   * tests of foo.el go into foo/tests.el
>
>     * With feature name foo/tests
>
>   * Any shared testhelp goes into foo/testhelp.el
>
>     * With feature name foo/testhelp
>
>   * Example files go in foo/examples/
>
>   * Alternative, they can all be placed in another directory
>     hierarchy, like "org/testing/foo/tests.el" as long as
>     "org/testing" is in the load-path (emacs doesn't know the
>     difference).
>
> I welcome any comments on this convention.  I considered it carefully;
> I wrote a small document considering the alternatives and chose this
> as best.  But it's young enough that it could be changed, were strong
> arguments made towards some alternative.
>
>        Tom Breton (Tehom)
>
>

- Carsten

Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

At Carsten's request, I am proposing emtest as the tester for
org-mode.  I would like to hear if there are any objections or
questions.

****** About Emtest

Emtest is an emacs-based test framework.  It reads tests, runs them on
command and presents their results.  Test suites can be run by suite,
by clause, or by library.

It is extensible and modular.  Nearly everything about it can be
replaced or extended.

One important feature is its testhelp libraries:

 * mocks/filebuf - for making mock files and buffers to run tests in.
 * mocks/dirtree - for making mock directory trees.
 * deep-type-checker - for testing that objects, especially
   structures, are type-correct right down to their leaves.
 * match - for pattern-matching.  When you want to test return values
   or similar, but some fields or elements don't have stable values
   (say, a timestamp or a UUID).
 * tagnames - extremely useful for defining test data and iterating
   over examples.
 * testpoint - useful for:
   1. testing functionality that is called deep inside something else,
      where writing a viable test would mean nearly cloning the
      something else to get the calling conditions right.
   2. Testing functionality that uses other functionality that can't
      be easily controlled by passing arguments.
   3. Testing that under given circumstances a certain point is
      reached, not reached, or reached the right number of times.

Also, in less than perfect shape right now:

 * mocks/keystuffer - work in progress, for capturing canned user input
 * misc and standard - standard testhelp functions.  Works but
   undergoing reorganization.
 * types - type specifications, extending what cl provides.  Right
   now, just a few that I needed.
 * persist - useful for tests of inspected output.  Not working right
   now due to redesign of an underlying package.

****** Some questions

  * Where to include it:

    * I'm proposing to put it under org-mode/testing/ So the directory
      structure would look like:

      * org-mode

       	* lisp

       	* (etc)

       	* testing

	  * emtest

	    * Many files

	  * Some support
	  * packages emtest
	  * uses.

	  * org-agenda

	    * tests.el

	    * (And other test files)

	  * org-archive

	    * tests.el

	  * org-ascii

	  * etc (the other org files' directories of test files)

       	* (other existing org directories)

  * Should testing of contrib files be in a separate directory?  It's
    not clear to me that it needs to be or should be.

  * Loading.

    Of course this shouldn't require much extra work to build and
    install.  Yet there's a case to be made for not building or
    installing it by default, "them that don't use it doesn't pay a
    cost".

    So I'm thinking I should add another target to the makefile to
    install it, as well as (of course) a test target.

  * How to include it, git-wise.

    What git wants to do with included external projects is to make
    them submodules.  However, I'm told that's a pain to deal with,
    moreso from the other end than from mine.  And it does seem like it
    would be.  Basically git treats a submodule as a single thing, but
    still "signs" it version-wise with a hex ID, and wants it to be the
    correct version.  So git insulates you just a little bit, at the
    cost of having to deal with an additional repository.

    So I'm thinking I'd just include it literally and if that proves
    hard to maintain then we still have the other option.


	 Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Dan Davison]

"Tom Breton (Tehom)" <tehom@panix.com> writes:

> At Carsten's request, I am proposing emtest as the tester for
> org-mode.  I would like to hear if there are any objections or
> questions.

Hi Tom,

My googling didn't manage to find emtest -- where does the code live at
the moment? Is there an Org repo out there demonstrating how it would
integrate, and/or some documentation and examples of usage?

Dan

>
> ****** About Emtest
>
> Emtest is an emacs-based test framework.  It reads tests, runs them on
> command and presents their results.  Test suites can be run by suite,
> by clause, or by library.
>
> It is extensible and modular.  Nearly everything about it can be
> replaced or extended.
>
> One important feature is its testhelp libraries:
>
>  * mocks/filebuf - for making mock files and buffers to run tests in.
>  * mocks/dirtree - for making mock directory trees.
>  * deep-type-checker - for testing that objects, especially
>    structures, are type-correct right down to their leaves.
>  * match - for pattern-matching.  When you want to test return values
>    or similar, but some fields or elements don't have stable values
>    (say, a timestamp or a UUID).
>  * tagnames - extremely useful for defining test data and iterating
>    over examples.
>  * testpoint - useful for:
>    1. testing functionality that is called deep inside something else,
>       where writing a viable test would mean nearly cloning the
>       something else to get the calling conditions right.
>    2. Testing functionality that uses other functionality that can't
>       be easily controlled by passing arguments.
>    3. Testing that under given circumstances a certain point is
>       reached, not reached, or reached the right number of times.
>
> Also, in less than perfect shape right now:
>
>  * mocks/keystuffer - work in progress, for capturing canned user input
>  * misc and standard - standard testhelp functions.  Works but
>    undergoing reorganization.
>  * types - type specifications, extending what cl provides.  Right
>    now, just a few that I needed.
>  * persist - useful for tests of inspected output.  Not working right
>    now due to redesign of an underlying package.
>
> ****** Some questions
>
>   * Where to include it:
>
>     * I'm proposing to put it under org-mode/testing/ So the directory
>       structure would look like:
>
>       * org-mode
>
>        	* lisp
>
>        	* (etc)
>
>        	* testing
>
> 	  * emtest
>
> 	    * Many files
>
> 	  * Some support
> 	  * packages emtest
> 	  * uses.
>
> 	  * org-agenda
>
> 	    * tests.el
>
> 	    * (And other test files)
>
> 	  * org-archive
>
> 	    * tests.el
>
> 	  * org-ascii
>
> 	  * etc (the other org files' directories of test files)
>
>        	* (other existing org directories)
>
>   * Should testing of contrib files be in a separate directory?  It's
>     not clear to me that it needs to be or should be.
>
>   * Loading.
>
>     Of course this shouldn't require much extra work to build and
>     install.  Yet there's a case to be made for not building or
>     installing it by default, "them that don't use it doesn't pay a
>     cost".
>
>     So I'm thinking I should add another target to the makefile to
>     install it, as well as (of course) a test target.
>
>   * How to include it, git-wise.
>
>     What git wants to do with included external projects is to make
>     them submodules.  However, I'm told that's a pain to deal with,
>     moreso from the other end than from mine.  And it does seem like it
>     would be.  Basically git treats a submodule as a single thing, but
>     still "signs" it version-wise with a hex ID, and wants it to be the
>     correct version.  So git insulates you just a little bit, at the
>     cost of having to deal with an additional repository.
>
>     So I'm thinking I'd just include it literally and if that proves
>     hard to maintain then we still have the other option.
>
>
> 	 Tom Breton (Tehom)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Carsten Dominik]

On May 24, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:

> At Carsten's request, I am proposing emtest as the tester for
> org-mode.  I would like to hear if there are any objections or
> questions.
>
> ****** About Emtest
>
> Emtest is an emacs-based test framework.  It reads tests, runs them on
> command and presents their results.  Test suites can be run by suite,
> by clause, or by library.
>
> It is extensible and modular.  Nearly everything about it can be
> replaced or extended.
>
> One important feature is its testhelp libraries:
>
> * mocks/filebuf - for making mock files and buffers to run tests in.
> * mocks/dirtree - for making mock directory trees.
> * deep-type-checker - for testing that objects, especially
>   structures, are type-correct right down to their leaves.
> * match - for pattern-matching.  When you want to test return values
>   or similar, but some fields or elements don't have stable values
>   (say, a timestamp or a UUID).
> * tagnames - extremely useful for defining test data and iterating
>   over examples.
> * testpoint - useful for:
>   1. testing functionality that is called deep inside something else,
>      where writing a viable test would mean nearly cloning the
>      something else to get the calling conditions right.
>   2. Testing functionality that uses other functionality that can't
>      be easily controlled by passing arguments.
>   3. Testing that under given circumstances a certain point is
>      reached, not reached, or reached the right number of times.
>
> Also, in less than perfect shape right now:
>
> * mocks/keystuffer - work in progress, for capturing canned user input
> * misc and standard - standard testhelp functions.  Works but
>   undergoing reorganization.
> * types - type specifications, extending what cl provides.  Right
>   now, just a few that I needed.
> * persist - useful for tests of inspected output.  Not working right
>   now due to redesign of an underlying package.
>
> ****** Some questions
>
>  * Where to include it:
>
>    * I'm proposing to put it under org-mode/testing/ So the directory
>      structure would look like:
>
>      * org-mode
>
>       	* lisp
>
>       	* (etc)
>
>       	* testing
>
> 	  * emtest
>
> 	    * Many files
>
> 	  * Some support
> 	  * packages emtest
> 	  * uses.
>
> 	  * org-agenda
>
> 	    * tests.el
>
> 	    * (And other test files)
>
> 	  * org-archive
>
> 	    * tests.el
>
> 	  * org-ascii
>
> 	  * etc (the other org files' directories of test files)
>
>       	* (other existing org directories)
>
>  * Should testing of contrib files be in a separate directory?  It's
>    not clear to me that it needs to be or should be.
>
>  * Loading.
>
>    Of course this shouldn't require much extra work to build and
>    install.  Yet there's a case to be made for not building or
>    installing it by default, "them that don't use it doesn't pay a
>    cost".
>
>    So I'm thinking I should add another target to the makefile to
>    install it, as well as (of course) a test target.

Yes, I agree.

>
>  * How to include it, git-wise.
>
>    What git wants to do with included external projects is to make
>    them submodules.  However, I'm told that's a pain to deal with,
>    moreso from the other end than from mine.  And it does seem like it
>    would be.  Basically git treats a submodule as a single thing, but
>    still "signs" it version-wise with a hex ID, and wants it to be the
>    correct version.  So git insulates you just a little bit, at the
>    cost of having to deal with an additional repository.
>
>    So I'm thinking I'd just include it literally and if that proves
>    hard to maintain then we still have the other option.

I agree with you.

- Carsten

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Martin Pohlack]

Hi Tom,

On 24.05.2010 23:26, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
> At Carsten's request, I am proposing emtest as the tester for
> org-mode.  I would like to hear if there are any objections or
> questions.
>
> ****** About Emtest
>
[...]

I made an attempt earlier to propose a testing framework and wrote some 
thoughts in an email thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg22558.html

Would your proposal cover my example-based approach?  How hard would it 
be to turn a typical bug report into a test case?

Cheers,
Martin

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

> "Tom Breton (Tehom)" <tehom@panix.com> writes:
>
>> At Carsten's request, I am proposing emtest as the tester for
>> org-mode.  I would like to hear if there are any objections or
>> questions.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> My googling didn't manage to find emtest -- where does the code live at
> the moment?

At the moment it lives in a tarball.  I will put up an updated version at
panix.com/~tehom/my-code/emtest-bundle.tar.gz  That's emtest plus all
supporting packages.  (Should be all, I may have missed some dependencies
I have locally)

I'm looking to have it hosted on Savannah. You've given me the impetus to
go and do that, so thanks.

> Is there an Org repo out there demonstrating how it would
> integrate,

Right now the only git repo lives on my machine.

> and/or some documentation and examples of usage?

Right now the documentation consists of my design notes, which are
probably confusing since they include as-built, unrealized plans,
self-debates over the right approach, discarded and/or obsolete plans,
bugfixes, and progress notes.  I will try to write up something more
accessible.

Every feature has examples of usage in the tests.el files, one of the
virtues of tests.

Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Tom Breton (Tehom)]

> Hi Tom,
>
>>
> [...]
>
> I made an attempt earlier to propose a testing framework and wrote some
> thoughts in an email thread:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg22558.html

I read that.  Interesting.

> Would your proposal cover my example-based approach?  How hard would it
> be to turn a typical bug report into a test case?

Not hard at all.  Most of what you propose is already supported.  You
would put both the input and expected output in FOO/examples/UNIQUE-NAMES

The sequence of commands can easily be made into a test case. 
`emt:insert' inserts the template for you (choose `emt:insert-test'), then
paste it in.

Rather than saving the buffer, you probably want to do it all inside a
mock buffer, like (excuse the online-editor formatting)

(emtb:with-buf (:file INPUT-FILE-NAME)
(operations)
(emtb:buf-contents-matches (:file OUTPUT-FILE-NAME))

For testing only visible output, you'd presumably use org-export-visible
and compare that buffer's contents to what's expected.

Wildcard comparisons in files are not yet supported.  I will take that as
a feature request.

Tom Breton (Tehom)

Re: Proposal: Emtest as tester

[Benjamin Andresen]

Hey Tom,

I was wondering what the status was of the emtest inclusion in org-mode?

Looks like the tehom-master in the org-mode repo is not the right one
(last commit Wed Apr 28 16:39:59 2010 -0500)

br,
benny