dmd testsuite naming scheme
Alex Rønne Petersen
xtzgzorex at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 10:57:14 PST 2012
On 03-01-2012 16:44, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:39:34 +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen
> <xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03-01-2012 13:36, Trass3r wrote:
>>>>> I honestly wouldn't know where to add or search for a test case.
>>>> It doesn't really matter where they go. A collection of test cases
>>>> with a theme to them might go in a named file, a random one might be
>>>> appended to any of the test* files.
>>> Won't this potentially lead to test duplication?
>>> Considering that the testsuite already takes quite some time to run this
>>> isn't a desirable trend imho.
>> Test duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing. In my experience, it
>> often happens that a tiny difference between two seemingly equal tests
>> can be all that matters.
>> On the other hand, grouping tests into files based on language
>> features might be a good idea. If anything, to be able to navigate the
>> test suite.
>> - Alex
> There is some opportunity in creating systematic feature tests backed
> with coverage analysis. There are still too many uncovered areas.
> This not only helps to find remaining bugs but gives a specification
> like overview of a feature state.
I still say D needs a formal specification more than a test suite as
some kind of excuse for a specification. (And no, I don't consider
d-p-l.org a spec; a guide at best.)
More information about the Digitalmars-d