|
This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test |
|
support code. |
|
|
|
To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than |
|
15 Feb 1999 |
|
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then. |
|
|
|
For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage |
|
instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script. |
|
|
|
You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module |
|
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each |
|
function explaining what's going on. |
|
|
|
Please write more Guile tests, and send them to [email protected]. |
|
We'll merge them into the distribution. All test suites must be |
|
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to |
|
collect assignment papers for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some test suite philosophy: |
|
|
|
GDB has an extensive test suite |
|
test suite catches a bug, it's great. |
|
|
|
GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid |
|
understanding of the code before making a change |
|
have time. You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it |
|
doesn't cause any regressions." The subtext is, I made a change that |
|
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be |
|
okay. |
|
|
|
I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using |
|
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of |
|
why their changes are correct. The problem is that any test suite is |
|
woefully incomplete. Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner |
|
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim's rule for test suites: |
|
|
|
Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise, |
|
never a possibility you were prepared for. Any other attitude |
|
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need |
|
only because your understanding is weak. |
|
|