OK. On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I feel challenged to write this up. So I will put it on my wish list and > assign your name to it. > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> 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
