On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:18:17PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> Good idea Schwern.
> These test suites inevitably degenerate into macro crack-pipe
> smoking sessions. Lacking 'eval', it is always going to be very
> hard work to even get close to Perl's Test::More functionality
> and ease-of-use in
I think even better than
ok( $expr, "name" );
or
ok( $expr, "comment" );
is
ok( $expr, "label" );
RJBS points out that "comment" implies "not really worth doing", and I
still don't like "name" because it implies (to me) a unique identifier.
We also talked about "description", but "desc
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yucko.
>
> Test::More implements cmp_ok() using an eval. Could a macro prove useful
> here to do something similar?
>
> cmp_ok(foo, 'int', '==', bar);
Good idea Schwern.
These test suites inevitably degenerate into macro crack-pipe
smoking ses
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 12:55:01PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> 3) Implementing cmp_ok() in C is a challenge. ;-)
>
> xUnit/cutest have things like:
>
> AssertStrEquals
> AssertIntEquals
> ...
>
> The trouble with plain old ok() is that investigating test failures
> is a pest. I suppose you cou
--- "Clayton, Nik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having done the initial work to get most of FreeBSD's regression testing
> infrastructure producing Test::Harness TAP compatible output, I've started
> putting together a C library that makes it easier to write tests in C.
Great!
This is something I
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:25:42PM -0800, Andrew Savige wrote:
> > --- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why add that extra auto-sprintf complexity? Can't the user do the exact
> > > same thing with:
> > >
> > > ok(some_func(i
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:25:42PM -0800, Andrew Savige wrote:
> --- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why add that extra auto-sprintf complexity? Can't the user do the exact
> > same thing with:
> >
> > ok(some_func(i), sprintf("some_func(%d)", i));
>
> No. sprintf in C needs
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why add that extra auto-sprintf complexity? Can't the user do the exact
> same thing with:
>
> ok(some_func(i), sprintf("some_func(%d)", i));
No. sprintf in C needs a buffer and you don't know how big to make it.
> > ok2() is for situatio
Keeping in mind I'm not a C programmer so my user expectations may be
all wrong.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:00:32AM -, Clayton, Nik wrote:
> Then you have one of ok() or ok2() at your disposal. ok()'s first parameter
> is the code to test. The second parameter is the test name. This is a
Having done the initial work to get most of FreeBSD's regression testing
infrastructure producing Test::Harness TAP compatible output, I've started
putting together a C library that makes it easier to write tests in C.
This is a few hours work at the moment, but it's functional, and I'd
appreciate
10 matches
Mail list logo
