Re: [Freekode-public] Tests (was: Re: Premake)

[Guilherme S. <gui...@gm...>]

Any option for me is good!

Option a) has the advantage that the test unit is =B3automatic=B2. What I want
to say is that is easy to add or remove tests just by adding/removing a fil=
e
to the folder.
That looks great for me.

Pedro, do you want to be responsible for that, if the others don=B9t mind?


Guilherme Santos


On 9/11/07 9:17 PM, "Ricardo Sabino" <rik...@gm...> wrote:

> On 9/11/07, Pedro Angelo <pa...@dc...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:49:09 +0100
>> Guilherme Santos <gui...@gm...> wrote:
>>=20
>>> > Speaking on tests.
>>> > I'm using CppUnit to keep my tests organized (I have only one at this
>>> > moment). Another advantage is that is easy to add or remove tests and
>>> > keep everything running.
>>> >
>>> > But this approach has several disadvantages too.
>>> > It's implemented in C++ and if we think in (possible) future
>>> > platforms such as mobile, it could be more complicated to get the
>>> > framework compiling for that platforms.
>>> >
>>> > Anyway, it's easy to copy the tests code and use it to build a
>>> > simpler test unit.
>>> >
>>> > What are you planning to test the freekode?
>>> > If you guys think it's better to build another approach, it's easy
>>> > for me to copy the code I have done.
>>> >
>>> > For the moment, I'll continue to use the cppunit to test my stuff :)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Guilherme Santos
>>=20
>> Hi Guilherme,
>>=20
>> I've also been thinking about this, and to make the code as portable as
>> possible we probably should create our own mini test suite in ANSI C
>> and expand it as need arises.
>>=20
>> I've had some experience testing C code with Check and although it's
>> cleverly designed to avoid C's pitfalls in regards to testing code, it
>> falls a bit short on portability for more exotic platforms because it
>> relies on certain UNIX functions like fork() and vsnprintf(). A few
>> years back I tried porting it to a DEC Alpha workstation only to
>> realize that not all UNIX environments have vsnprintf()...
>>=20
>> Since openKode targets embedded platforms I'm expecting that we can't
>> count on much more than a working ANSI C compiler.
>>=20
>> So anyway, back to the idea of a minimalistic test framework what do you
>> guys prefer:
>>=20
>>  a) Each test is an executable in a special "test dir" and a test runner
>> app runs each test it finds via system() and reports the output.
>>=20
>>  b) Each test is a function (usually a macro) and the test runner just
>> calls the functions iteratively (this usually requires a fork() to
>> avoid a bad test crashing the test runner)
>>=20
>> I'm currently leaning towards option a) but I can use whatever
>> alternative you feel more comfortable with.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> p.
>>=20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>> <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freekode-public mailing list
>> Fre...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freekode-public
>=20
> I also agree that tests should be made ANSI C compatible to make sure the=
y run
> in most (if not all) platforms.
> I'd also go for option a).
>=20
> Regards,
> Ricardo.
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Freekode-public mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freekode-public