update to regression testing framework

[Francois Gouget]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Paul Millar wrote:
[...]
> > -ok( ($atom >= 0xc000) && ($atom <= 0xffff) && !defined($wine::err) );
> > +named_ok( "Adding atom \"$name\" via GlobalAddAtomA()", ($atom >=
> >            0xc000) && ($atom <= 0xffff) && !defined($wine::err) );
>
> Here's the rationale: when a test result is displayed (currently only on
> failure or success in a todo block) the file name and line number are
> included. If the test file is altered then any tests after the edit will
> have different line numbers. This makes these tests look like new ones: an
> undesirable behaviour but not too big an issue. Explicitly naming tests is
> a way of making the test results line-number independent.

Ok, so the goal is to make it possible to automatically analyze the
test results. I see you point then.

[...]
> meaning) and they may appear at an arbitrary point. A test name always
> appears in the same line as the test result, producing lines like:
>
> tests/atom.pl:Checking GlobalAddAtom[AW](i) i < 0xc0000: Test succeeded
>
> IMHO, this is a lot cleaner than using trace messages, although there's
> still the potential redundancy between a test's name and its error
> message.

Yes, seems cleaner than test messages but there is the problem of
redundancy between the 'name' and the error message. Also, it seems that
for your purposes all tests should use named_ok otherwise you will not
be able to identify all tests. This means modifying all tests, and/or
just having ok. No?

--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
      Broadcast message : fin du monde dans cinq minutes, repentez vous !