On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 3:56:26 PM UTC+2, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > >>>>>Associating code with unit tests would be useful, but putting tests > in p.u is about the most complicated thing that might work. >
Of course. Conceptually, AFAICT, unit tests and code are in a similar relation as natural language text and code. Going to the roots of Leo, we are again dealing with Noweb and CWEB tools for tangled vs. separated/clean presentation but - with bigger chunks - not just snippets of code/text in a body text of a single node but, a collection of nodes on either side. >>>>>There is nothing to prevent two-way unl's between code and unit tests. Each node (containing code to be tested) could contain a link to a tree containing zero or more unit tests. Each unit test could optionally contain a link back to the node being tested. So there is a (benign) many-to-one relationship between the links. IMHO, it sholuld be two separated standard leo trees (tabs) with a solution for jumping from code to unit tests and back at the level of nodes. BR, Vili -- 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/256edee5-55e2-4bb4-936f-39a46e425d8a%40googlegroups.com.
