I agree with Jason.
On Thursday, June 8, 2017, 3:44:53 PM CDT, Jason Kenny
wrote:
given some time reflex on this.
I think I rather have the directory for plugins-for-testing to be under:
tests/tools/plugins/
and the location for the test for a given plugin to be under
tests/plugins/or tests/g
given some time reflex on this.
I think I rather have the directory for plugins-for-testing to be under:
tests/tools/plugins/
and the location for the test for a given plugin to be under
tests/plugins/or tests/gold_tests/plugins
The main point is the plugins-for-testing should be under the locati
I am fine with tests/plugins.
We just need to make sure the code is documented to say what it tests. Some
cases will be one-off plugins while other will be reusable
Jason
On Friday, June 2, 2017, 3:17:52 PM CDT, Steven R. Feltner
wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusio
+1 for tests/plugins. It should cut down on the confusion of someone trying to
use it as a ‘real’ plugin versus putting it in the plugins/* directory
structure.
On 6/2/17, 2:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" wrote:
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call wro
+1 for tests/plugins as well.
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Bryan Call wrote:
>
> +1 for tests/plugins
>
> -Bryan
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll
>> wrote:
>>
>> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests.
>> This is just the first of somet
+1 for tests/plugins
-Bryan
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Alan Carroll
> wrote:
>
> PR 2042 has a special plugin in it which is used only for performing tests.
> This is just the first of something that is going to occur repeatedly in the
> future. These plugins are not written to be genera
