At Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:31:20 -0700,
Eric Schulte wrote:
>
> [1  <text/plain (7bit)>]
> David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de> writes:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > At Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:22:34 -0600,
> > Eric Schulte wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> I agree it would be preferable to note that not all tests are run when
> >> dependencies are missing, although I don't think it is extremely
> >> important.  I think some version of the above would be worthwhile if it
> >> could be done in a file-wide manner (as are the current dependency
> >> checks) and wouldn't require duplicating the dependency check or
> >> changing every test form individually.  Perhaps a file-local-variable
> >> could be used to expect failures for every form defined in the file?
> >
> > I tried the approach with a file-local variable but it didn't work
> > out: A macro can be expanded at any time, i.e. looks like there is no
> > way to obtain a reference to the buffer where the macro is defined at
> > expansion time.
> >
> > But finally came up with this one:
> >
>
> Nice macro,
>
> The only downside I see is the requirement to wrap every single deftest
> form which (to me) is too much overhead for too little payoff.  How
> about the following which will register a failing test for each file of
> tests not loaded due to missing dependencies.

The macro operates not just on a single `ert-deftest' form, but all
deftests in BODY. It kind-of works like a file local variable.

The current solution does its job, too -- so there's no need to use
this macro. Getting feedback about tests not run because of missing
dependencies is all I every wanted.

Best,
  -- David
--
OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6
Jabber.... dmjena@jabber.org
Email..... dmaus@ictsoc.de