About test presence
cputney at wiresong.ca
Sat Dec 20 03:11:13 UTC 2003
On Dec 19, 2003, at 1:35 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> I was thinking about this 1-1 mapping being painful this morning.
> I don't think I use BrowseUnit in quite the usual way. I typically have
> two Browsers open, one with the production code I'm working on and one
> with the tests for that code. In the test code browser, I use the
> buttons to run the tests for the message or class I'm working on - I
> use them to create the test classes or messages. While I usually end up
> with one test class for one production class, I usually have scads of
> messages for any particular message (depending on the complexity of the
> message - some of the transaction state changes in SIP (RFC 3261) can
> a lot of things to be tested - far too many for just one test message).
Yup, that's pretty much how I work, although I use Ned's Enhanced
TestRunner instead of BrowseUnit. I probably should have mentioned
that I'm not entirely against having test cases that only test one
production class. I just don't want to be forced into that pattern, by
tools or convention.
>> PS. I'm partial Kazuki Minamitani's TestBrowser, although it hasn't
>> worked well in recent versions of Squeak. I'd love to see
>> this kind of
>> tool further developed.
> Yes, TestBrowser also rocks. And since I started using it the other
> I'm finding that it's actually a bit handier to use than BrowseUnit
> I can run the tests for an entire category as easily as testing one
> class or
> However, I stick by my guns on the slint button BrowseUnit provides :)
> Although, if TestBrowser had a slint button on it that ran slint in
> process like BrowseUnit...
Agreed. I like SLint, although I haven't found a way to use it in my
day to day programming.
More information about the Squeak-dev