On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37, Dave Whipp <d...@dave.whipp.name> wrote:
> I could also imagine writing code that reads from an Sqlite database, and
> imposes that info onto the test. Whatever mechanism is used, I think we need
> a language-defined mechanism to supply a stable unique identifier for each
> test, so that it can be individually tracked and manipulated. Perhaps "is
> only" is the wrong way to implement the action-at-a-distance, but it does
> seem better (IMO) than a preprocessor.
i don't understand the drive to have unique test identifiers. we don't
have unique identifiers for every code statement, or every bit of
documentation. why are tests so important/special/different that each
warrants a unique id? that aside, this functionality sounds like it
can be encapsulated in a module, if desired. as it stands, i can't see
a reason reason it *has to* be made available in the core.

as a recap, the discussions larry, patrick, moritz and i (and others,
i'm sure) had on this topic long ago led to agreement that the most
important characteristics for a portable specification test suite

~ the tests should be organized in such a way that it makes it easy to
figure out to what bit of spec is under scrutiny
  (addressed by directory/filename standardization and smartlinks)
~ the test files mustn't be cluttered with code that implementations need ignore
  (comments are used, which are by default ignored, and can be
preprocessed to customize the test for each implementation)
~ the skip/todo markers should be as close to the relevant tests as
possible, so they're less likely to fall out-of-sync
  (the markers are in comments in the test file, directly above the tests)

it's my view that spec tests should be easy to maintain for developers
of multiple implementations, and uniqueness is an overly burdensome

Reply via email to