I think a convention is good. I also think that this kind of organizational principle (where do tests go? How do you name the "main" file in some package? etc) is completely appropriate for a style guide somewhere, so maybe I'm missing something, tho.
Robby On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > One of the responses to the draft of the Racket style guide contains the > following paragraph: > > >> There should be unified way to test collections. Let's say I fix >> something in collect `foo', there should be an obvious way to run >> `foo''s tests. Currently, the closest we have would be to look in >> `tests/foo', and see if anything looks like an entry point. >> Standardizing on test suite entry points would make it easier for >> people to run tests after fixing bugs in collects that are not their >> own. Such an entry point could be that each collect `X' is required to >> have a `tests/X/run.rkt' file that, when run, runs the test suite for >> `X'. > > > I don't consider this topic appropriate for the style guide. > But I consider it important enough to bring up for discussion. > > QQQ: Is there a policy that spells out testing collections? > > QQQ: Should we try to formulate one or leave individual testing styles alone? > > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
