Hi,
I just downloaded, unpacked and ran Squeak 3.7 for windows. I popped open the SUnit test runner and ran the tests. A bunch of them failed and some required me to manually intervene. Is this normal, or have I done something wrong?
If it is normal .... why? Is there anything I can do to fix it; other than just deleting all of the tests - which seems wrong. I'm a proponent of TDD and I can't live with a system where tests fail every time I run them.
R.
Hi
I should say that I like this kind of attitude :)
I just downloaded, unpacked and ran Squeak 3.7 for windows. I popped open the SUnit test runner and ran the tests. A bunch of them failed and some required me to manually intervene. Is this normal, or have I done something wrong?
If it is normal .... why? Is there anything I can do to fix it; other than just deleting all of the tests - which seems wrong. I'm a proponent of TDD and I can't live with a system where tests fail every time I run them.
What is need is a test server reporting bug and linking that to a mantis like bug report management system? but we do not have that :(
Now we should really identify the ones that can be fixed and fix them so if you can comment/participate this would be great because we are a bit flooded in this moment.
Stef
Folks,
Just a few hours ago I discovered an apparent bug in SUnit that resulted my resource setUp being called twice - this may have some relationship w/what Rob is seeing.
In TestResource(class)>>new, the code is "super new initialize". Because in 3.7 (as I understand it) new now calls initialize ("^self basicNew initialize") TestResource>>initialize is called twice and my setUp is called twice.
I fixed by removal of the "initialize" message from TestResource(class)>>new.
I haven't done my homework on - validating this is the right fix, - seeing if there's unit tests for SUnit (!) - filing this as my 1st bug w/Squeak.
So I though I'd send this out as a start.
thanks, Steve Sanderson
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of stephane ducasse Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:56 AM To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: Re: Unit tests failing in clean image
Hi
I should say that I like this kind of attitude :)
I just downloaded, unpacked and ran Squeak 3.7 for windows. I popped open the SUnit test runner and ran the tests. A bunch of them failed and some required me to manually intervene. Is this normal, or have I done something wrong?
If it is normal .... why? Is there anything I can do to fix it; other than just deleting all of the tests - which seems wrong. I'm a proponent of TDD and I can't live with a system where tests fail every time I run them.
What is need is a test server reporting bug and linking that to a mantis like bug report management system? but we do not have that :(
Now we should really identify the ones that can be fixed and fix them so if you can comment/participate this would be great because we are a bit flooded in this moment.
Stef
So this is a good opportunity to learn how to do it. Submit a fix and a test :)
Stef On 31 oct. 04, at 00:14, Steve Sanderson wrote:
Folks,
Just a few hours ago I discovered an apparent bug in SUnit that resulted my resource setUp being called twice - this may have some relationship w/what Rob is seeing.
In TestResource(class)>>new, the code is "super new initialize". Because in 3.7 (as I understand it) new now calls initialize ("^self basicNew initialize") TestResource>>initialize is called twice and my setUp is called twice.
I fixed by removal of the "initialize" message from TestResource(class)>>new.
I haven't done my homework on
- validating this is the right fix,
- seeing if there's unit tests for SUnit (!)
- filing this as my 1st bug w/Squeak.
So I though I'd send this out as a start.
thanks, Steve Sanderson
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of stephane ducasse Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:56 AM To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: Re: Unit tests failing in clean image
Hi
I should say that I like this kind of attitude :)
I just downloaded, unpacked and ran Squeak 3.7 for windows. I popped open the SUnit test runner and ran the tests. A bunch of them failed and some required me to manually intervene. Is this normal, or have I done something wrong?
If it is normal .... why? Is there anything I can do to fix it; other than just deleting all of the tests - which seems wrong. I'm a proponent of TDD and I can't live with a system where tests fail every time I run them.
What is need is a test server reporting bug and linking that to a mantis like bug report management system? but we do not have that :(
Now we should really identify the ones that can be fixed and fix them so if you can comment/participate this would be great because we are a bit flooded in this moment.
Stef
On Saturday, October 30, 2004, at 11:56 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
I should say that I like this kind of attitude :)
I just downloaded, unpacked and ran Squeak 3.7 for windows. I popped open the SUnit test runner and ran the tests. A bunch of them failed and some required me to manually intervene. Is this normal, or have I done something wrong?
If it is normal .... why? Is there anything I can do to fix it; other than just deleting all of the tests - which seems wrong. I'm a proponent of TDD and I can't live with a system where tests fail every time I run them.
What is need is a test server reporting bug and linking that to a mantis like bug report management system? but we do not have that :(
Now we should really identify the ones that can be fixed and fix them so if you can comment/participate this would be great because we are a bit flooded in this moment.
One thing we might consider is adding something like this Expected Failures enhancement to SUnit:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-July/ 063931.html
Then we might categorize the long-standing bugs as expected failures, and then we'd be more alert to new bugs that appear. And the expected failures list would represent a to-do list of bugs for anyone to work on. (Ideally the expected failures should show up somewhere in the SUnit UI.)
Well, it's not a perfect solution, but IMO it *is* better than what we have now. Should we add this to the SUnit package?
- Doug
Am 31.10.2004 um 06:02 schrieb Doug Way:
One thing we might consider is adding something like this Expected Failures enhancement to SUnit:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-July/ 063931.html
Then we might categorize the long-standing bugs as expected failures, and then we'd be more alert to new bugs that appear. And the expected failures list would represent a to-do list of bugs for anyone to work on. (Ideally the expected failures should show up somewhere in the SUnit UI.)
Well, it's not a perfect solution, but IMO it *is* better than what we have now. Should we add this to the SUnit package?
I will put out a new version of Squeak SUnit with this added. Should be ready till saturday. (I should then look into folding those changes back into the main SUnit release... for now Squeak SUnit forked from the official SUnit, but plans are there to get this back in).
For the failing tests in the release: The best would be of course to ship a release with all those bugs fixed...
Marcus
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org