* Janek S. <[email protected]> [2012-10-05 10:51:35+0200] > Talking about good timing - I was just finishing my post on code testing in > Haskell when your > announcement came up, so your library made it as a last minute news :) I > never used golden > approach to testing but it is good to know that it exists.
Cool, looking forward to reading it! I hope you won't forget to cover SmallCheck in your article as well. Being also the maintainer of SmallCheck, I want it to steal some fame from QuickCheck :) > *I* think that it might be a good idea to separete your library into two > parts: the golden > functionality itself and test-framework provider. Right now it seems > impossible to use your > library outside of test-framework. For me that's not a big deal, cause I use > test-framework > anyway, but I suspect you could get more users that way. In theory I totally agree, but: 1. It's hard to guess at the moment how a good interface to the "pure golden" part should look like. 2. I'd rather avoid doing work when there's no demand. So when I see someone interested in using it outside of test-framework, I'm sure we'll figure something out. Roman > > According to the test-framework convention, they ought to be named > > > > Test.Framework.Providers.Golden > > > > and > > > > Test.Framework.Providers.Golden.Advanced > > > > respectively, and you can see that it was the case in the early > > versions: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/test-framework-golden-1.0 > > > > But it's just too much to type. > Well, I'm already typing Test.Framework.Providers.QuickCheck2, so that's not > a big deal really :) > > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
