Quoting Mathieu Bouchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >>> e.g. "fail_blabla" will only success if it returns the state "FAIL" >>> immediately or after a "WAIT". >> In a binary system, anything that doesn't success would be a >> failure. I don't quite get the WAIT state. Do you have an example >> of where to use that? > > In most tristate electronics, the third state is WAIT, but in Pd, you > normally do that by not sending a message: if as binary you'd send a 0 > or 1 while running a certain method, and want to introduce a WAIT > state, you'd make it not output anything at first, introduce proper > [delay], and only later send a 0 or 1 when it's ready. It's as simple > as that. If the answer is not going to come, an explicit "wait" message > isn't going to disambiguate nor solve that, so it might be a good idea > to put some timeout protection *outside* of the tests themselves.
again, this suggestion is based on practical experiences with tests. my first iteration of the framework did it exactly like you just proposed. in practice i found it often simpler to write tests that only output a result when they know that they have passed: you need to create far less logic, which might minimize the chance to write buggy tests (which i found is inevitable) likewise, it is often simple to have a shortcut to tell the framework that the test is known to have failed (most of these shortcuts could be avoided by splitting the test into several sub-tests; in practice i found that i prefer to write less tests) apart from that, a mechanism to quit a test from outside after some timeout might be a good idea. fgmad.r IOhannes ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
