On 3/10/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Himmelstrup wrote: > > Thu Mar 9 18:05:14 PST 2006 Lemmih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Initial foundation for quickcheck tests. > > > > I have no idea how to use the testsuite so I'll start > > making QuickCheck tests instead. > > I've included tests for 'HeaderInfo.getOptions'. > > > > A ./ghc/quickcheck/ > > A ./ghc/quickcheck/HeaderInfoTests.hs > > A ./ghc/quickcheck/README > > A ./ghc/quickcheck/RunTests.hs > > A ./ghc/quickcheck/run.sh > > Having no idea how to use the testsuite is not an excuse for not using > it! There's a pretty good README.
The README is 400 lines long! How can that be good? > We don't need another place for > putting tests, and quickcheck tests work fine in the testsuite (there > are already some). There are no serious quickchecks in the testsuite. I found just one entry that didn't test the standard libraries: "prop_silly xs = head xs == head xs". Now how can that be when QuickCheck is so incredibly useful? I want to test the core of GHC and I want a neat interface. Running 'make' in the testsuite sprays garbage like a broken fire hose and doesn't die when I hit C-c. > I recently put some effort into making the testsuite run fast, so now > 'make fast' in testsuite/tests/ghc-regress takes less than 5 minutes on > a decent machine. > > Putting tests in the testsuite ensures they get run every night, and get > included in the summary, etc. etc. I don't really want that (how can people spot important failures among the hundreds of tests that fail every day?). I think QuickCheck is a great tool and I'd love to continue using it in the way it was intended. -- Friendly, Lemmih _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
