On 4 August 2012 at 11:22, Peng Yu wrote: | Hi, | | I have trouble in finding a good strategy for organizing test cases to | have complete coverage for Rcpp based code. | | The example in RcppArmadillo_0.3.2.4/inst/unitTests has some problem | in the sense that, each file is too large --- if there is a little | change the whole test file should be run, which takes more time than | necessary. I think that having a more granular test file organization | can be beneficial. Also, the test file is not in close proximity to | the function being tested. This cause inefficient when navigating | between the testing code and the function to be tested. | | There are many ways in solving these problems in other languages. For | example, primitive test code can be embedded in the docstring in | python. I'm wondering if anybody knows the best software engineering | practice for working with Rcpp code. | | BTW, the test code in RcppArmadillo_0.3.2.4/inst/unitTests can be run | only after RcppArmadillo is installed. For a developer, he/she does
It gets worse. You even have to install R. And a C++ compiler. Gee. Seriously: please think through what you are suggesting here. We are talking about __compiled language__ and outside of a time machine I see very few tools that would permit you to __test before installation__. Dirk | not always want to install the package before he/she can run the test | case. "devtools" solves this problem for pure R package. I'm wondering | if there is any equivalent thing for Rcpp based packages. | | Thanks! | | -- | Regards, | Peng | _______________________________________________ | Rcpp-devel mailing list | Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org | https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
