On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 6:07:03 AM UTC-5, vitalije wrote: For a long time I've been feeling that Leo unit tests don't prove anything. > They usually don't exercise real Leo code at all or if they do, they > exercise just a small portion of it. So, the fact that unit tests are > passing doesn't mean Leo would work properly for real users. >
This is a separate issue. As I understand it, unit tests are meant to test small portions of code. They can also ensure that specific bugs don't happen again. It might take a huge effort to fully eliminate all `if g.unitTesting` > conditionals from Leo core, but it might be worth doing. > A second separate issue. It's not likely to happen, because tests in unitTest.leo test outline operations. It's natural to run those tests in a real outline. Indeed, I don't see how else to run those tests. I've just updated the title and first comment of #1467 to indicate that leoTest.py and unitTest.leo will likely remain. *Summary* unitTest.leo seems necessary to test outline operations. @test nodes are natural in that environment. For all other work, using stand-alone test classes should be easier and more natural. Even in unitTest.leo, there will likely be ways of leveraging stand-alone test classes. I'll be investigating the possibilities... Using traditional unit tests where possible will remove another objection to using Leo. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/dd029cac-6860-4f8f-a565-7a3083f16120%40googlegroups.com.
