On 10/29/16 6:57 PM, "Chris Yate" <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote: >I think the problem is, how would you define an assertion, and what are >you intending to test (i.e. what's the Subject Under Test?). I think >something like Lilypond might require some quite elaborate test fixtures >/ fakes. > >There are probably C++ functions you could test with a C++ assert based >test framework - Catch for example - or something simpler. Obviously >anything doing a bit of maths is easy to test; the interesting functions >tend to manipulate "Grob" objects; would the > tests be examining their properties after the function call? > >But what about Scheme code?...
The only thing that I can think of for unit testing is to do the following: 1) For each file, define a set of regression tests that the file affects. The set of regression tests should exercise all known functionality of the files. 2) Get a known good, "gold-standard" definition of each of those regression tests. 3) Assert that when each of the regression tests is run, the output should pixel-to-pixel identical to the gold standard. 4) If the assertion in 3 is met for all reg-tests identified in step 1, the file passes. Note that we have a mechanism similar to this in place right now, with make test-baseline and make check. I suspect it could be cleaned up with some work to provide the desired unit test functionality. HTH, Carl P.S. We could do the same for midi output, as well _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
