We *really* need a development model change !

[Andriy Palamarchuk]

--- Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> wrote:
[...]

> What is a test

I wonder if I'm the only one who favours using
existing testing framework? Why to create something
new if you have not reviewed existing options?

Perl has big choice of tools. In previous messages I
reported about choices for C.

Are you afraid that it will be difficult to learn new
API? We impose some conventions ourselves.
All the frameworks I saw provide very simple API.

Examples of usages of different frameworks:

Perl module Test::Simple:
ok( 1 == 1, '1 == 1' );
ok( 2 == 2, '2 == 2' );

Perl module Test::Unit:
sub test_ok_1 {
  assert(1 == 1);
  assert(2 == 2);
}	

C framewok Check:
fail_unless(1 == 1, "1==1");
fail_unless(2 == 2, "2==2");

Sure, there is more code to structure the test suites
and glue them together, but API is very simple and can
be easy guessed from examples. I don't see developer
spending more than a few minutes to learn the
framework basics.

Advantages we get using existing framework:
1) existing services of the framewok can be used. Some
of the services which I'm interested in:
 - TODO tests (by default are not reported), SKIPPED
tests (test is not executed for some conditions) -
Test::Simple Perl module
 - powerful reporting capabilities
 - test code structuring (init, run, teardown, tests
hierarchy)
 - individual tests application address space
protection - Check C framework

2) the implementation of the API can be extended as we
like without changing the API. We can use help of the
framework developers. Conformance to the API is
maintained by compilation process. The conventions you
suggested can be changed only with changing the tests
and can't be easy checked.


Andriy Palamarchuk

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com