Babystep: Testing framework
fgouget at free.fr
Thu Jan 10 12:59:38 CST 2002
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
> --- Jeremy White <jwhite at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> > However, having the diff feature allows us to more
> > rapdily adapt existing programs to become tests.
> > Since it's done (and it's trivial code), I don't see
> > the harm in leaving in the feature. We can hide
> > it/discourage in in the (as yet unwritten) doco if
> you like.
> Some disadvantages of the diff approach was discussed
> before. I just realized the problem which will make
> using this approach practically impossible. The
> problem - variations of output as result of:
> 1) using different Windows versions.
.ref -> deneric reference
.win95 -> win95 reference
.win98 -> win98 reference
Okay, if the difference is between nt and win 95/98/me then it may
get a bit hairy.
> 2) using TODO tests. The problem becomes even worse if
> more than one Win32 implementation project (e.g. ODIN)
> starts to use the test, because list of TODOs is
.ref.diff files. If the diff between the .out and the relevant .ref
file matches that diff file, then all is good.
> Now, imagin combinations of these :-)
WONTFIX will not be very practical. But are they really needed? I
would say that TODOs should be enough.
> Explicit check, on other hand, nicely comments all
> these conditions in one place - in code.
Except that in some cases they will make the checks pretty complex.
Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different.
More information about the wine-devel