Piers Cawley said:
> Richard Nuttall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In a previous life, I worked as part of a team (implementing Expert
>> Systems in VAX Pascal actually), and we had one person whose sole aim
>> in life was to design and build test cases. In many cases his complete
>> lack of know
Richard Nuttall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a previous life, I worked as part of a team (implementing Expert
> Systems in VAX Pascal actually), and we had one person whose sole aim
> in life was to design and build test cases. In many cases his complete
> lack of knowledge of implementation de
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:03:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Maybe there's a terminology problem: but what is a regression test? In my
> world, we create a regression by running existing tests: we don't write a
> special test suite for the regression. There may be a small number of tests
> that w
Dave Whipp:
# Maybe there's a terminology problem: but what is a regression
# test? In my world, we create a regression by running existing
My understanding is that a "regression test" is basically a test to make
sure a bug doesn't come back once it's been fixed.
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I'm happy pick a format and run with it. When we've a few
micro-sections
done, then we can review. I see (in another post) that Mike has opted
for
external, "without objection". I'm abstaining. But I would like to see
executable exa
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:21:09AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro:
> # On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
> # > Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the
> # > standard testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory
> #
> # Dunno, lo
"Chromatic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Advantages of inline tests:
> - close to the documentation
> - one place to update
> - harder for people to update docs without finding code
Plus, it gives us a mechanism to validate example-code
within documents
> Disadvantages:
> - doc tools must skip te
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# > Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of
# the standard
# > testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory
#
# Dunno, looking for a way where we can harness the authors for
# produci
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:00:05 +, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
>> Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the standard
>> testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory structure to
>> organize things. Since
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:49:35PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: This get back to defining the focus/level of the testing that we want to
: achieve. Some of these items may make sense for paranoid testing; but
: not as part of a comprehensive test suite.
Er, I thought it was paranoia that makes a t
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 10:01 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
Why use POD like this instead of a more atomic version of the standard
testing format used by Perl 5? We can use the directory structure to
organize things. Since most tests are not worthy of inclusion in the
docs (do you really wan
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:22:37AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA,
> we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as
> possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks,
> etc.) we can't
Michael Lazzaro:
# But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA,
# we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as
# possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks,
# etc.) we can't help much with, but syntax and behavioral
# iss
I've asked Allison to give us someone on p6i who can tell us exactly
what tests are appropriate and how they should be coded, assuming she
can get someone to agree to it. ;-)
I expect that person should be able to tell us exactly (1) what sorts
of tests they want, and (2) how we should build t
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:56:32PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
>> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
>> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i
Dave Whipp wrote:
Richard Nuttall wrote:
Writing a complete test suite really also needs reasonable knowledge
of how the internals are written in order to understand the kinds of
tests that are likely to provoke errors. (More thoughts on this if
requested).
[...]
Consider item 0. Do we nee
Richard Nuttall wrote:
I agree with that. take the example of reverse (array) in this thread.
Really, the testing should have a number of other tests to be complete,
including thorough testing of boundary conditions.
e.g. - tests of reverse on
0. undef
1. Empty list
2. (0..Inf) - Error ?
3. Mixe
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
The fact that we don't need C is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around a basic parrot feature
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:43:01 +, Dave Whipp wrote:
> I see where you are coming from ... but is the IO infrastructure really the
> most primitive thing to rely on? It may be at the moment; but I expect
> that it will become more complex. C may be a built-in right now;
> but it should probably m
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The fact that we don't need C is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e. Test::More,
> Test::Harness, etc.)
I would argue that we sho
"Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3DD0674C.1080708@;osu.edu...
> A module? For something as basic as print?
> I hope not, that would certainly be a pain.
My understanding is that C will be a method on C (or
whatever), which has a default invocant of $stdout. This module m
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 05:43:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> One thing the "golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into
>> and out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
>> perl6/parrot to do just about the mi
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
verification
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Allison, if you could arrange an official liaison on p6i that could
> direct (in a definitive, buck-stops-here way) authors' efforts w/
> regard to how perl6-specific tests should be written, we would be
> grateful. We seem to have a decent number of people here will
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
documentation, not code. An obvious question is how to extend it to be a
more thorough test, whilst not spoiling the documentation. We'd want to
intersperse text with the test-code; and probably mark a few bits as
"hidden", from a normal documentation view (levels of hiding m
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
> out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
> perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
> verification off to outside t
> Hm. I'm not sure how well it goes with the Perl philosophy ("the perl
> language is what the perl interpreter accepts"), but we could embed the
> _real_ test cases in whatever formal spec happens. This would be the
> excruciatingly boring document only read by people trying to implement
> perl
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Dave Whipp wrote:
> This is fine as a test, but not as documentation. Furthermore, it is
> depending on the "print" statement for its comparison (not necessarily bad;
> but I find that "golden-output" style tests tend to become difficult to
> maintain -- specific assertions ten
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is
what we've got, though they're intended to
> exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language" (which looks like
> it's changing quite a bit from what's implemented).
OK, lets take a specific test. builtins/array.t conta
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer to some existing Perl
> 6 tests that they can model off of. Do any exist yet?
languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is what we've got, though they're intended to
exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language"
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Otherwise, they're just normal tests and are handled by things like
Test::Tutorial, Test::More and Test.pm. Details on the test output
protocol
can be found in Test::Harness.
I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer
In order for TODO tests to work Test::Harness must be upgraded (only 5.8.0
ships with a T::H able to parse TODO tests). An upgraded version of
Test::Harness can simply be distributed with Parrot the same way Test::More
is.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:31:50PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I can't
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Can anyone write up a detailed document describing how one would go about
> writing Perl6 test cases and submitting them to Parrot? The parrot
> documentation on testing, is understandably focused on testing parrot...
> not the languages running on parrot.
>
> I can't find
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:31 PM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Can anyone write up a detailed document describing how one would go
about
writing Perl6 test cases and submitting them to Parrot? The parrot
documentation on testing, is understandably focused on testing
parrot... not
the langua
From: David Wheeler [mailto:david@;wheeler.net]
> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:36 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > # simple substitution
> > my $var = "perl5";
> > $var =~ s/\d/6/;
> >
> > While this is completely valid perl6, and something that
> > might want to be included in the regex test
36 matches
Mail list logo
