On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 09:24 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > Unitesting is there to make sure that no unintention breakage occurs. > I'm not willing to take a major piece of code into SCons core without > tests. > > That would violate SCons's practices.
Excellent position, I have no problems with that. For tools I think the end-to-end tests are essential, and the SCons test framework very usable. The question is though that if the _Library type is not exposed is there actually a test obligation if all the publicly exposed things (the builders) are exercised by end-to-end tests. Having said this I am still working on a test for fetching a package from a local area and installing on a local area so it fits in the test framework, but it doesn't really emulate what happens in a real case, so it is not clear to me what is actually being tested, and whether the test is actually useful. My worry is that such a test simply tests whether Dub does what it says it does, which is nothing to do with SCons and the dub tool per se. On the other hand there are now function in the dub tool that could use a bit of testing for confidence sake. I am trying to work out how best to do that with an end to end perspective. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
