develooper Front page | | Postings from March 2007

Re: "Test profiles" ready?

Thread Next
Eric Wilhelm
March 20, 2007 23:50
Re: "Test profiles" ready?
Message ID:
# from Ken Williams
# on Tuesday 20 March 2007 08:00 pm:

>I think the only aggressive change in the code is the test profiles  
>stuff.  The rest is all pretty straightforward.  Do you think the  
>profiles stuff is ready to ship & commit to as supported  

Yeah.  The 'test_types' property stuff is basically sound and 
straightforward.  That is, generic_test() won't need to change later.  
It just adds extensions to be found in find_test_files(), so I'm 
satisfied with that.

As for the fancier bits.  Maybe we should flag ACTION_testall as alpha.  
Of course, /CPAN(?:PLUS)?.pm/ won't be doing `./Build testall` by 
default, so I think it is fine to ship it as such.

What needs improvement is how the tests are aggregated if the custom 
testing is trying to do some specific setup in the build action.  We 
can't just dispatch to the various 'testfoo' actions from 
ACTION_testall() because that would potentially mean multiple harness 

At the moment, the testfoo actions should be like so:

  sub ACTION_testgui {
    my $self = shift;
    $self->generic_test(type => 'gui');

Anything else won't be compatible with the current ACTION_testall.

For that basic case of "run only the tests with these extensions", I'm 
confident we can be reverse-compatible.  For more advanced usage, 
testall won't work yet anyway, so that can only improve.  Of course, 
the "more advanced usage" would never work with `runtests`, so maybe we 
won't try to support dispatching (i.e. we'll just auto-gen the 
ACTION_testfoo methods based on the $self->{properties}{test_types}.)

So, the short answer is yes.  Ready, but not <trumpets>Done</trumpets>.

"Insert random misquote here"

Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About