On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Peter Lobsinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, James E Keenan <[email protected]> wrote: >> $ ll t/include/ >> total 1 >> -rw-r--r-- 1 jimk jimk 760 Dec 14 20:30 fp_equality.t >> >> This directory in our repository holds a single test file. From the >> documentation: >> >> t/include/fp_equality.t - Test runtime/parrot/include/fp_equality.pasm >> >> DESCRIPTION: Tests fp_* functions. >> >> >> >> Could this file be moved to another directory? Do we expect to have to >> write tests for other files under runtime/parrot/include/? > > There are only 2 other files in that directory which are not > automatically generated by h2inc: > * test_more.pir - straightforward and already gets a heavy workout > from our test suite. no test required. > * hllmacros.pir - contains macros for emulating HLL constructs in > assembly. if I remember correctly, these are known to be buggy, and > their use is ill-advised. why hasn't this been removed yet?
> Neither of these two files are likely to get tests. $ ack -ai hllmacros t t/library/hllmacros.t 4:.include 'hllmacros.pir' $ prove t/library/hllmacros.t t/library/hllmacros.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=17, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.01 sys + 0.02 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.09 CPU) Result: PASS These macros are tested, and are used extensively in partcl. Also: $ prove t/library/test_more.t t/library/test_more.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=117, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.12 cusr 0.04 csys = 0.21 CPU) Result: PASS > This directory is exclusively for files using assembly code textual > inclusion as a loading mechanism. Among parrot devs, this has fallen > out of favour as a means of separating abstractions out into files. We > are unlikely to add more files that use textual inclusion at the > assembly level as their method of loading. > > Recap: new tests for existing files unlikely & new files unlikely. > therefore, new test files unlikely. > >> I would like to know because 't/include/' is currently *not* include under >> either 'make test' or 'make fulltest' -- which means it's not regularly >> being run at all. > > Well that's a problem. These tests prove (or should prove) that the > floating point comparison macros (which are/should be used pervasively > through our test suite) are sane. This sanity is critical to the > testing of other components of parrot. > >> Thank you very much. >> kid51 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev > -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
