Babystep: Testing framework

Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr
Wed Jan 9 14:21:58 CST 2002


On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jeremy White wrote:
[...]
> > Also it seems the consensus is that
> > we should simply check the exit status of the test, not compare the
> > test output.
>
>      Sorry, this wasn't clear.  That is the default behavior.
> I preserved the pattern and reference checking as an optional
> addition.

   I think we should definitely be able to check the test output against
a reference version.

[...]
> >>     2.  I really don't like that a C/Winelib
> >>         test requires its own directory
> >>         (see samples/sample3).  However, AFAICT,
> >>         that was the only way to create a simple
> >>         and clean build environment for the Winelib app.

   You don't need to. You can do things like winemaker does and then you
can put as many executables and libraries as you like in a single
directory. But you may not be able to reuse the standard
@MAKE_PROG_RULES at .


> > That's the problem with C tests. You cannot have one executable for
> > each test, at least not with Winelib, so we need a way to build
> > multiple tests inside a single executable. Not very hard, but there's
> > a bit of work involved.

   Why can't you have one executable per test? Or is there some
test/check confusion here? One check per executable, or perl file for
that matter would be crazy.


--
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
                           La terre est une bêta...





More information about the wine-devel mailing list