> > I’m both asking how they should be named, and how to advertise them for > programmatic consumption. > For example, and automatic testing program such as that included in > quicklisp, should not try to stand-alone > load systems which are not designed to work stand-alone. We have to work > around this by artificially > making all systems “work” in standalone enough to fool quicklisp. > > Can you explain the quicklisp constraint? How does it find all systems? > > One simple expedient for this quicklisp issue -- if I understand it correctly > -- would be to have a test-op default perform method for all systems that > simply succeeds. It should probably by default issue a warning that no "real" > test method exists, and that warning should have a particular type so that it > can be muffled by quicklisp. Probably also we should allow the programmer of > the original system to make a test-op no-op method that emits no warning > (because the system is intended not to be testable). >
As I understand quicklisp, it ties to compile each system in a top-level sbcl, and asserts that that works. As far as I know that is the only test it does. I don’t believe it does anything special with test-op.