From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Test framework needed
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:42:19 -0600
Message-ID: <87hbakp9hw.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <4D9329BC.6000106@gmail.com> <87r59og1pt.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net>
	<4D93369C.7010608@gmail.com> <87vcz03d4p.fsf@sbs.ch>
	<4D933E9E.7030907@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51571 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q548e-00065a-AV
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:45:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schulte.eric@gmail.com>) id 1Q548c-0005uG-SK
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:45:20 -0400
Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:40280)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schulte.eric@gmail.com>) id 1Q548c-0005u4-Nc
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:45:18 -0400
Received: by iyf13 with SMTP id 13so2278578iyf.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Christian Egli <christian.egli@sbs.ch>

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
direction.

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