Thanks julian. I think that this is nice way to look at it.

Defining another one would be good - the only important point is that we could 
load it and 
it can transparently replace SUnit.

BTW I do not know what is the status of the recent SUnit changes made by Nial
I know that at ESUG they published a squeak version so it would be good to 
start there.
Stef


> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Adrian Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One thing we do not know is how many folks are out there that depend on
>>  internal representation of SUnit. I talked to some folks and identified two
>>  requirements, first that legacy tests should keep running and second that
>>  contributions to other sunit forks should keep being mergeable. The first
>>  seems feasible, the second sounds like it boils down to not cleaning
>>  anything :)
> 
> Well, the second may require working *with* SUnit maintainers on other
> platforms. :) I guess I don't know exactly what you define as
> "internal representation" but from Seaside's point of view it is
> absolutely essential that unit tests be runnable the same way on all
> platforms - it's the cornerstone of portability. The fact that we
> can't write lint rules that work on all platforms is already sad
> enough.
> 
> So if you're going to do anything that breaks compatibility between
> platforms, please rename it and make sure both are loadable in the
> same system (and we, at least, won't be able to use it).
> 
> It would be really nice to have *one* SUnit that worked everywhere
> with only minor platform-dependent pieces (like Seaside) where
> necessary. This would be much more sustainable than the forked
> situation we have currently, but that's a whole different battle.
> Although now I've said it, why not just start from scratch? There's
> not a lot of code there... implement something that works the way you
> want, build it using Grease/Slime so we can port it easily to
> everywhere else, and that's something Seaside could use (assuming it
> was compellingly better). And suddenly we'd have a test framework that
> *did* run everywhere with a common code base.
> 
> my 2c,
> 
> Julian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to