On 3 Jul, 2007, at 11:14, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
D John Anderson wrote:
The recorded scripts use asserts to do verification. This turns
out to
be very convenient for development, because of our debugging
environment. We could implement another assert mechanism that does
the
same thing assert does and is controlled by some other mechanism/
command
line flag besides -O. That didn't seem worth the effort since we
already
need to use asserts in the testing code and asserts are a well
established convention.
I think we should change the verification to something other than
asserts, then.
+1
Maybe something like (I'd have to look at the actual code
that currently does the verifications to know for sure...):
if Globals.options.recordedTest:
if test_condition_1 is False: raise AssertionError("test1 failed")
if test_condition_2 is False: raise AssertionError("test2 failed")
...
I'm more a fan of "if not blah" than "if blah is False". Or, wrap
everything in a function à la unittest.
--Grant
If the reason you want to do the tests without -O is that you're
worried
about the side-effects introduced by asserts, then implementing
another
equivalent assert mechanism to run tests won't avoid side-effects
of the
same testing code.
Not just asserts, but if __debug__: sections introducing side-
effects as
well. Also, running with -O changes timing which we also know to be a
thing that affects our tests.
--
Heikki Toivonen
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
