[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] tests/examples: Add running of workflow examples
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] tests/examples: Add running of workflow examples |
Date: |
Sat, 07 May 2022 08:46:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.0.50 |
Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> writes:
>>> + (define scenarios
>>> + (list "extended-example-workflow.w"))
>>
>> Should these better be discovered automatically via SCANDIR?
>
> Well some example are not full workflow. Only processes. So I think that
> yes, if we set a common prefix for full workflow:
>
> (scandir "." (cut string-prefix "exemple-workflow" <>))
>
> However, it's nice -- even more true when debugging -- to be able to
> cherry-pick the tests. This is easier with the list above by commenting
> tests that are passing.
That makes sense.
>> Why shell out to RM when we have DELETE-FILE and its recursive friend in
>> Guix? I’d also rather move clean-up work to a DYNAMIC-UNWIND handler.
>
> I hesitated to include Guix's module in test. If you're okay with it, I
> will use the helpers available in Guix. I concur that the cleanup
> should be in dynamic-unwind.
Yes, using the helpers from Guix is fine. The GWL doesn’t make much
sense without Guix anyway :)
>>> + (format (error-output-port)
>>> + "Example directory: ~a\n" tmp-dir))
>>
>> Nitpick: ~% instead of \n.
>
> Is there a reason why? I don't mind I just never really understood why
> scheme has this special format rule for newline.
I don’t know if there’s a reason for it, but I prefer it for consistency.
>>> + success?)))
>>> + scenarios))
>>
>> This FOR-EACH loop combines test definition with test running, which
>> seems wrong to me. Maybe SRFI-64 is not the best fit for tests that
>> only care about whether a shell command was run successfully. Perhaps
>> we should do as Guix does and just have a shell script to run these
>> tests.
>
> What do you find wrong about it? We could re-write it as:
>
> (define (run-example path)
> ...)
>
> (test-assert (run-example "extended-workflow.w"))
> (test-assert (run-example "..."))
>
> if you like it better. However, we lose the power of SCANDIR mentioned
> above.
Hmm, you’re right about that. If you could split this up into smaller
procedures (one definition of RUN-EXAMPLE and another that loops
TEST-ASSERT and RUN-EXAMPLE on the test files) I’d already be happy :)
> Let me know, I will send a v2 with your above recommendations and answers
> to my questions.
Thank you!
--
Ricardo
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [PATCH] tests/examples: Add running of workflow examples,
Ricardo Wurmus <=