From: Egon W. <ego...@gm...> - 2007-10-25 14:30:27
|
Hi David, On 10/25/07, Jiao, Dazhi <dj...@in...> wrote: > >> But the unit test for JavaCC is pretty out of date. > >> > > > > Please explain.... > > > I don't deem myself responsible for the JavaCC based parser. I don't > think others think that way either based on our previous email exchanges. No, you are not. But you indicate that something is wrong with the code of the unit tests, which makes you responsible to indicate *what* is wrong with it... it does not make you responsible for fixing it... > > That's why SMILES should not be used in JUnit tests :) > > > Please advise what other options I have. Make a IMolecule object directly, with addAtom() and addBond() calls. > >> In the ported test, some of the other failures are because the number > >> used in the assert is not correct. > >> > > > > OK, update them then. > > > It'll be really a waste of time to update because it basically will end > up with the same unit test as SMARTSSearchTest. Was Rajarshi not complete in his overview in JUnit test suites? I have not seen this suite yet... please summarize which suites there are for the JJTree based SMARTS parser, and what each suite does. > > Please check the report for branches/cdk-1.0.x/ too, because tests are > > failing there too, and no new CDKAtomTyping is involved there... > > > How do I check it? I haven't used the branches before. svn co https://cdk.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/cdk/branches/cdk-1.0.x Egon -- ---- http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ |