On 3/10/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 March 2006 13:04, Lemmih wrote: > > > On 3/10/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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? > > Well, you don't need to read it all, of course. > > GHC is a complex system, there are lots of things to test. I believe > our test suite is a pretty good framework, but I'm open to ways to > improve it. > > Just adding tests to the tree outside the test suite framework is the > best way to ensure that your tests never get run. How can that be good? > > > 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? > > look in lib/Concurrent, eg. Chan001, MVar001.
Those aren't GHC tests. They test the standard library. > > 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. > > The C-c thing is a problem, I agree. I usually use C-z followed by kill > %. There's probably a fix for it, but it never annoyed me enough to > look into it. > > You don't want to say 'make' in testsuite/tests/ghc-regress unless you > want to run all the tests as many ways as possible. Usually you want to > go into a subdir and say make, or something like 'make TEST=foo fast' to > run a single test just one way. Running 'make fast' in lib/Concurrent still generates tons of garbage and provides no easy way of finding important failures. It's fast but still has exactly the same problems as before. > > I don't really want that (how can people spot important failures among > > the hundreds of tests that fail every day?). > > That's a different problem, namely that we haven't gone through and > cleaned up the bogus failures for a while, and some of the failures are > there to remind us about real bugs. I don't see the point of running tests when it's not easy to see if they've failed. > > I think QuickCheck is a great tool and I'd love to continue using it > > in the way it was intended. > > Sure - but just put your quickcheck tests in the existing testsuite > framework, that's all I'm asking. Maybe we need a better way to > integrate QuickCheck tests, I'm all for that. Okay, I'll move it. -- Friendly, Lemmih _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
