Rainer M Krug <r.m.k...@gmail.com> writes: > On 30/03/11 16:18, Christian Egli wrote: >> Rainer M Krug <r.m.k...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/UnitTesting >>> >>> Am I right in assuming, that all of the possible test frameworks would >>> require org files and the expected output (tengle, export to ..., >>> agenda, ...)? In this case, would it make sense to start collecting >>> those, as they can easily be user contributed, consequently representing >>> a cross section of the use cases (even not intended use cases)? >> >> Before you go too far with this; Orgmode already contains a unit test >> suite. Look at the README in the testing directory >> (http://orgmode.org/w/?p=org-mode.git;a=blob_plain;f=testing/README.org;hb=HEAD) >> > > But it does not look as if it is used very often... There are not many > test org files, and I did not se anything which compares the resulting > exported / tangle file with an expected output? > > Please correct me if I am missing something. >
You are correct that the existing test suite needs some attention and some more tests. Just a general commitment to convert problem reports from the mailing list into unit tests should be a step in the right direction. However the existing test suite (while under populated) is the result of multiple previous discussion of this nature on the mailing list, and I think that abandoning the existing infrastructure would be a step in the wrong direction. > > This suite should actually be updated with effectively each patch which > introduces new features and run after each patch. > Agreed, in a perfect world... > > So is it only necessary to add meat to this framework? > Yes, I believe the best way forward would be to add tests to the existing framework. Best -- Eric > > Rainer
