octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for built in tests.


From: Robert T. Short
Subject: Re: Proposal for built in tests.
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:46 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090402 SeaMonkey/1.1.16

OK. I am not sure I totally agree, but as I said, I am not sure my way is really better either.

Unless someone objects, I will go ahead on an as-time-permits basis and move tests to where they seem to belong.


Thanks for the response.

Bob


John W. Eaton wrote:
On 21-Jun-2009, Robert T. Short wrote:

| In a recent email exchange John suggested that it would be nice for | someone to move tests from the test directory to the files that the | tests are being tested. | | I have started to do this, but would like to make a proposal. There are | pros and cons, so it isn't clear that my approach is any better but it | does simplify some aspects of creating tests. | | The problem: | | Including tests in .cc files will cause those files and everything that | depends on them to be made. This can take a really long time. | | The proposal. | | For .cc (and other compiled files), why not create a file with the same | base but with a .test extension? Thus ov-class.cc will have a file | called ov-class.test that contains the tests.

Moving the tests to separate files sort of defeats the purpose of
having the tests in the same file as the code, which was to make it
easier and more likely that the tests would be edited when the code
changes.

jwe





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]