[ANN]Draft rough plan for 3.6!
marcus at ira.uka.de
Tue Apr 15 14:04:59 UTC 2003
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 01:16:28PM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi Marcus and all!
> Marcus, what are your thoughts on how we should verify the (removed)
> package installations?
> You have been working with some of them and also with tests so it would
> be interesting to hear.
> Do you think there is a point in creating a test-package for each that
> at least does *some* kind of test - no matter how simple?
Yes, there are two reasons: 1. This will be a nice starting point for
adding more tests. 2. even a simple test will catch some trivial errors...
I think for many packages we could come up with some pretty simple
tests. lets see... we have the folowing removals:
BaseImage tests --> Ok. that's easy ;-)
Celeste: we have a test that opens Celeste on a nil database and presses
all buttons. not bad as a starter.
Games: just start up all games. Shouldnt give an error. The only game were
we have a real good test for is FreeCell:
(freeCell _ FreeCell new) openInWorld.
freeCell board pickGame: 1
VM generation: we could do the stuff that the macroBechmarks are doing:
generating the Interp.c. Then maybe opening/closing of vmMaker.
Macro benchmarks: just run them
PWS: That's difficult. But nobody uses pws anyways.
SUnit: comes with tests, these need to be moves into it's own package.
Scamper: just open it: It renders the "about" page, so the whole
rendering need to work for this.
Speech: Run the demos (Possible with no sound-output ;-) ).
Balloon3D: don't know. Maybe we could simply open the 3dExplorermorph.
These are really only meant as first tests. In the future, I hope people
will add more tests (and refactore the code to make this possible). But
we need to start somewhere...
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
More information about the Squeak-dev