From: Janne H. <ja...@hy...> - 2004-12-18 17:15:25
|
Hello, I made an initial version of the tester. I think something like this should suffice for the time being. I used the module naming scheme proposed by John Max Skaller. Otherwise it's pretty much what everyone else has been talking here on the list. You can download the source from: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~jjhellst/extlib/ It doesn't have many tests yet, just a few placeholders to demonstrate the file layout. I found one issue: BitSet.is_set does not throw Negative_index at all. Other functions tend seem to raise this exception. Is this the expected behaviour? ciao, janne On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 11:38:31PM +1100, skaller wrote: >> OK, but the naming 'test999.ml' sux :) > > Yup. > >> Random contributions require a more consistent naming scheme. >> So how about: >> >> test_<author>_<module>_<name>.ml > > Seems sensible. > >> <author> is the authors initials eg rj, js, nc, jh. >> <module> is the Extlib module being tested, or 'multi' if more >> than one. > > Should we have tests which test more than one module? > > Rich. > > -- > Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/ >>>> http://www.team-notepad.com/ - collaboration tools for teams <<< > Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment > http://subjectlink.com/ - Lesson plans and source material for teachers > > |