Babystep: Testing framework
Francois Gouget
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
etc.
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
> project-specific
.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
mailing list