Re: [cclib-devel] cleanup of tests

[Karol L. <kar...@kn...>]

On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:34, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
> On 04/09/07, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote:
> > I think it is a good idea to also clean up the unittests a bit before
> > releasing 0.8. In the interest of this, I added a "SKIPPED" column in the
> > test summary and the appropriate code for monitoring this (currently
> > based on PASS being in the docstring). This way it easier to see where we
> > are skipping unittests. Also, in my last commit I merged testmodule into
> > testall as Noel suggested (although the name 'testall' does not reflect
> > its function anymore!).
> >
> > Other issues that you might want to comment on:
> > 1) there should be more coverage of unittests for methods(?)
> > 2) should unittests for parsers and methods be either better integrated
> > (possibly run through the same function) or better separated (in separate
> > directories)? Presently, testall.py runs only parser unittests, so
> > shouldn't it be renamed to testparsers.py?
> > 3) I noticed that there are a number of tests in GeoOpt that can be done
> > for SP, so should they be only in SP or in both?
>
> All of these ideas are good and should be done, but I don't know about
> doing them right now - perhaps you could do them on a branch (or maybe
> it's time for cclib-0.8 to branch off)?. For example, rename
> testall.py to testparsers.py; create a directory parsertests and put
> testGeoOpt.py etc into these; make it possible to run testparsers.py
> with "GAMESSUK SP" to just test GAMESSUK SP, or SP everything, or
> GAMESSUK everything (then we can remove the code for running the test
> from testSP.py, etc.).
I'll be more than happy to do all that since it'll clarify the tests, but I'll 
wait until after the release. It probably won't be as simple as adding a few 
lines like the commit I made yesterday. Still, I wanted to mention the things 
here, since I would otherwise forget about them soon.

> On the other hand, I have no problem with adding more tests, so if you
> want to copy tests from testGeoOpt to testSP, that sounds good to me.
That I will do - no harm in having more tests...

-- 
written by Karol Langner
Tue Sep  4 21:00:57 EDT 2007