We *really* need a development model change !

[Francois Gouget]

On 8 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dimi at cs.toronto.edu> writes:
>
> > So, bottom line, I think you should accept whatever tests you get. If the
> > author gets a woody writing them in C, or using some test harness or
> > another, let's just consider it the motivating factor behind writing the
> > tests in the first place.
>
> Unfortunately that's not possible. If everybody uses his favorite test
> harness we will soon have more of them than actual tests. It's already
> going to be enough work maintaining one framework and making sure it
> always works both on Windows and Wine, we can't afford to have several.

   I agree that we should not have as many testing frameworks as test
writers. But maybe two would be acceptable. I propose the following:

 * you posted the beginning of a perl test framework. What is needed
before it can be committed to CVS? AFAICS all it lacks is support for
difference files, aka TODO tests.
 * so let's complete that framework and commit it to CVS
 * then if someone really wants a C testing framework, let them develop
it. And then we can replace

test:
	<run-perl-tests>


with:

ptests:
	<run-perl-tests>
ctests:
	<run-c-tests>
tests: ptests ctests

   The perl test framework will need a way to build a zip file of some
sort with all the necessary stuff to run the perl tests on Windows. All
we need is for this to not be confused when we add the C tests. The C
tests will need such a functionality too. And it should package just the
C tests and not the perl tests.
   So we should be able to have perl and C tests side by side, in such a
way that they basically ignore each other.

   Then we'll see after a little while which framework is being used.
And if one of them is never used, then as Dimitrie said, we can convert
its tests and remove it.



--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
                  In a world without fences who needs Gates?