On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.cou...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:25 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote:
>> I can see the utility of this. It would be simple enough to have Group
>> take an (IO [Tests]) instead of just [Tests].
>
> Note that that's not quite the same thing. That lets you do IO to
> enumerate the tests, not IO before and after running a group of tests.
> I'm slightly confused about what you and Johan are talking about with
> [Tests] etc. Can you post what the new proposed data types are please?
Johan and I are talking about renaming the Tests type to just "Test"
to be more consistent about pluralization. So, also incorporating the
changes I think you are suggesting to the Group type, it would look
like:
data Test
= Test TestInstance
| Group
{ groupName :: String
, concurrently :: Bool
, groupTests :: [Test]
, preGroup :: IO ()
, postGroup :: IO ()
}
| ExtraOptions [OptionDescr] Test
Test modules would export:
tests :: IO [Test]
> As for convenience functions, I don't know if it's worth it. We're not
> expecting packages to implement this directly. It'll just be for
> packages like test-framework to implement. But if they're cheap and
> obvious then I don't object strongly.
The most important one I can think of would be
testGroup :: String -> [Test] -> Test -- Make a Group with
concurrently = True and no preGroup or postGroup
I would expect test frameworks to provide interfaces that create a
Test directly, rather than returning a TestInstance. I think that and
the above function would cover all the common use cases.
--
Thomas Tuegel
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
