Op 23-09-2023 om 17:13 schreef Mike Gran:
Hi,Would a rewrite of the Guile tests using SRFI-64 be a welcome idea? IMO the advantages of doing so are:...Opinions?IMHO, I think Guile should not depend too heavily on Guile for testing itself. It is bad bootstrapping practice.
Whether you use Guile's custom test utilities or SRFI-64, in both cases you are equally depending on Guile to test itself.
A benefit of SRFI-64 is that the SRFI-64 implementation has tests whereas (IIRC) Guile's custom thing doesn't.
Another benefit is that the SRFI-64 implementation is also tested in other Scheme implementations, which partially mitigates the ‘tester testing itself’ issue (it turns out that it has bugs, see patch by Taylan Kammer (*)).
Also, there are not bootstrapping issues, because Guile is built before the tests are run (‘make check’ implies ‘make’).
And personally, I find that errors in srfi-64 tests are more difficult to interpret that errors in the guile test suite framework. The logging is worse.
There is a not-yet-applied patch (*) that changes the SRFI implementation to be better, but I don't know if it improves error messages and logging.
If there is anything concrete you consider worse about error reporting in SRFI-64, perhaps the test runner could simply be tweaked to fix that.
(*) https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2021-05/msg00007.html
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
