On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 08:44 +0000, Gary S. Thompson wrote: > Edward d'Auvergne wrote: > snip > > > Also do you think that we should have a single unit test > > file per relax module? I can see value in not enforcing this rule. > > For example the 'specific_fns.model_free' module contains a very large > > number of class methods. This could be better served by a directory > > such as 'test_suite/unit_tests/specific_fns/model_free/' and allowing > > that directory to have a separate unit test model per class methods > > (each containing numerous tests of that one method). As each relax > > function or method will require numerous tests for proper functioning, > > proper throwing of RelaxErrors, etc, the unit test modules could > > become quite large and unwieldy, especially if the self.setUp and > > self.tearDown() methods need to be different for different > > functions/methods. > > > It would be ideal to have one file per because then we can check for > basic coverage and overlooked unit tests. However there is nothing to > stop you adding imports to auxiliary classes to carry out the individual > tests.... >
Although I take the point about multiple tests, setUps and tearDowns per method, I'd generally suggest that if the unit test file is getting too unwieldy, the related module probably is too. So perhaps we should enforce this rule, and split modules when neccessary, not split unit test files. (still more work, still more breakages, but that might be the cost of a manageable code base) Chris _______________________________________________ relax (http://nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
