Quickly: It is common to use a submodule for tests, in the same source file: (module+ test (require rackunit) ....)
then running `raco test <file.rkt> ...` will run all the tests. Such tests are also automatically run in DrRacket when you press run (along with the 'main' submodule). For packages that have a collection A, it is also common (and considered good practice) to have another collection 'test' with a subdirectory for A and its tests. See for example the xml-rpc repo: https://github.com/jeapostrophe/xml-rpc This is partly intended for use with DrDr (that runs `raco test`), a tool written by Jay for the development of Racket. I don't know much more about it, but other people on this list do. Laurent On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Chad Albers <calb...@neomantic.com> wrote: > As a Ruby engineer, we have a wonderful tool called "guard" that > automatically runs our unit-tests every time a test-case changes or > every-time a source file changes. > > I have written a guard plugin that performs the same task for Racket's > rackunit. Currently, it pretty primitive - guard runs all tests if > anything changes - and it makes several assumptions about how tests > are structured. > > guard's ruby unit test plug works so well because there is a set of > informal conventions that Ruby developers follow, and guard's ruby > plugin works so well because it can counts on those conventions. > > Before I release "guard-rackunit" to the general public, I am > wondering if similar conventions exist for rackunit. > > For instance, in my Racket project, the following conditions hold true > 1. all tests are located at the root of the project in a directory call > "tests" > 2. in the "tests" directory, I have a "test-runner.rkt" file that > performs all '(run-tests *). > 3. Each test-suite file contains one 'provide' which corresponds to > the name of the test-suite > 4. Each test-suite file is name after the file that it tests and > appends "-test.rkt"; eg. foo.rkt corresponds to foo-test.rkt > > If the Racket community follows a different set of conventions, I can > change my guard plugin to follow those conventions, and only have > guard run a test suite for the file it tests. > > Let me know 1) if there is any interest in this project, and 2) a set > of conventions that I can generally depend upon. > > Thanks, > Chad > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
