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

Re: proosal: removing test-result objects

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: > So I'd probably go the other way and make test results (or, more likely,
test cases) first class, something like so:

  (test-case [runner])  ->  current or most recent test case, or #f if none

  (test-case-kind tcase) -> one of (pass xpass ...) [*]
  (test-case-passed? tcase) ; same as (memq (test-case-kind tcase) '(pass xpass))
  (test-case-property tcase 'property [value])   ; property setter/getter
(test-case-name tcase) -> test name [* although 'kind' is looking like a strange name here; maybe "disposition"?]

I think you're being inprecise wrt test-case vs test-result.
A test-case is something you execute and the result is a
test-result (or a test-case-result).  I might re-run the asme
test-case multiple times, in a different environment.  It's then
a single test-case, but multiple results.  Though perhaps you
could argue if it's run with a different environment, it's really
a different test-case.  Still, I don't think using test-case to
mean a result is a good name.

So the question: Is it useful to make test results first-class?
Perhaps.  I can see some use cases: a testrunner that just saves
every result.  Then perhaps you can have an interactive GUI,
where you can click on a result to see details, for example.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/