I've added a "testing tools" section and a simple example of an org-mode test using ert to Sebastian's org testing page in worg. I don't mean to advocate for ert, it is simply the only elisp testing framework that I have any experience with.
I'm pessimistic that the colossal amount of work involved in wrapping all of org-modes extensive and varied functionality into a test framework can/should actually be completed. Would it be sufficient to simply begin dealing with bug reports in a test-first manner? Also, should we start tracking bug reports somewhere (worg), so that they can be claimed, tested against, and repaired? Thanks -- Eric Robert Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's a page on the EmacsWiki describing schemes for unit/regression > testing in emacs lisp: > > http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/UnitTesting > > Perhaps we could pick up one of these? I haven't evaluated any of them. > > In response to Ben Alexander's question, yes, sometimes the screen > output is what you care about, but a big advantage of emacs is that the > screen output is a big array of text, so we could check it (it's a lot > worse, if it's just a bit map...). Sure, we can't always do that, but I > think in many cases we could just grab up a buffer's contents and > compare it against a "right answer." > > best, > r > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
