Ok, thanks for your quick reply. I see now. I only have in mind
mathematical operation errors and not errors in the code itself. I have
done some and am pretty sure some remain. This is one of the main purpose
of checking each routine I have added. So, right.
Greg
Le mer. 28 juin 2023, 16:41, Waldek Hebisch <de...@fricas.math.uni.wroc.pl>
a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 03:57:47PM +0200, Grégory Vanuxem wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering why there is only String parameters based routines in
> > Unittest. What I mean is that from what I have seen the argument(s) to
> all
> > routines are of type String:
> > ==================================
> > testLibraryError : String -> Void
> > testTrue : String -> Void
> > xftestTrue : String -> Void
> ...
> > ===================================
> >
> > I can understand that, for example Expression(Integer), it is usually the
> > simplest way to check correctness but I am wondering why there is only
> this
> > method.
>
> There is one basic reason. Assume we just pass arguments in "normal"
> way to counting routines. If there is an error in an argument to
> counting routine then execution is aborted _before_ call to counting
> routine. So, to get consistent counts arguments to counting routines
> must be "foolproof", that is should never cause errors. The way
> we use is to pass strings, whatever its content string is a valid
> argument and can not cause errors. If _execution_ of string causes
> error, then counting routine will notice this and count test as
> failed.
>
> In principle some (maybe many) tests have arguments that should
> never cause errors, so it would be possible to use non-string
> form for them. But it is simpler and more reliable to always
> use string form.
>
> > I explain. I'm continuing to implement a "simple" wrapper to parts of
> > Julia. And since all computations are done inside Julia and since this is
> > essentially Float64 based I'm wondering if for my purpose I could provide
> > my routines which are Julia based and returns Boolean values.
> >
> > In other words, what I would like is to add to the Unittest framework, at
> > least, a simple routine say "isTrue" for example but handled by another
> > module or even coded in the input file. I insist on using the actual
> > framework with use of UnittestAux and UnittestCount routines I guess.
>
> Well
>
> isTrue(passes_test())
>
> would treat error in 'passes_test()' the same as if 'passes_test()'
> was not called at all. OTOH
>
> testTrue("passes_test()")
>
> will notice and report error in execution of 'passes_test()'.
>
> --
> Waldek Hebisch
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/ZJxGeK9Fpq%2BPhtHP%40fricas.math.uni.wroc.pl
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/CAHnU2da9-b1Ps9vauY1Np%2B6iqR6rNHsquwbXSFJ3X705oV264g%40mail.gmail.com.
