I still maintain my opinion of most of these "stupid' test programs because many of them look like this:
001 PROMPT '" 002 INPUT ANS 003 PRINT OCONV(ANS,"MD2,$Z") 004 END and another one looks like this 001 PROMPT "" 002 INPUT ANS 003 PRINT OCONV(ANS,"DMA") 004 END Admittedly there is a cutoff between my one-line approach and the need for commons, opens, includes and other support to test subroutines. But still, even a lot (not all) of subroutines could be tested with my PRINT statement. mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifton Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [U2] [UD] running a subroutine > However, an argument can be made for *not* eliminating those 90% of > "stupid" test programs. By writing small test programs that not only > pass the subroutine known input but then check the results against > predicted values (predictive testing), you are building a test suite of > automated unit tests. > > -- > > Regards, > > Clif > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > W. Clifton Oliver, CCP > CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES > Tel: +1 619 460 5678 Web: www.oliver.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Oct 20, 2004, at 17:17, Mark Johnson wrote: > > > Perhaps 90% of standard stupid test programs can be > > eliminated with PRINT. > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
