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

Re: "Test results"

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 64 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 64 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Donovan Kolbly wrote:
Although, that doesn't work if we allow the semantics of "test-result-set!". If something like that is needed, then the abstraction is preferable.

I don't think that test-result-set! and test-result-clear need to be
part of the API - I suspect only the implementation needs them.
test-result-get would be needed in a test-runner - and possibly
in a test-suite (or at least something like test-passed?).

I'd even prefer clarifying when you can call a mutator: by default, I
wouldn't allow side-effects except in the extent of a custom runner hook
(as set with test-runner-on-test!), because I may want to export the
results out of the system when the custom runner completes.

Right.  I guess I could see a custom hook wanting to add extra information
(annotations), though I don't have a use case for that in mind.  I doubt
there'd be any use for modifying existing result properties.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/