Hello Marc > groff already has perl and shell so we should stick on those choices. > > I saw some tests in the current codebase writen in shell but nothing > that complies to a report system.
"Back then", after creating a local clone of groff's git repository, I presumed the sub folder `/contrib/chem` would either - contain a dedicated file like `test...`, or `check...` in name, or - `chem.pl` / `chem.pic` itself would contain something which to me looks like an assertion test that the _visual_ result in the output to postscript were in good shape. For instance a regular square (not a rectangle), or a hexagon as an easily recognizable chemical motif. The doodle with `pytest` -- the only tool to test something I gained (a little) experience so far -- was set up because the simple checkout of the repository does not provide them this way. But it is ok to leave this behind because the subsequent example you then shared in lines of "`GOT` some input -> `EXPECT` specific result" is so much more suitable for the reference data in `/contrib/chem/examples/122/`. Best regards, Norwid
