About lonnnnng tests
rrobbes at info.unicaen.fr
Tue Oct 5 07:27:04 UTC 2004
Actually I have no plan yet on how to implement this fonctionality ...
this was just a fast reaction to Avi's idea.
I know I have some code to link tests and methods, and I have to
experiment with your approach too.
Concerning your proposal for the workshop, I'll be very glad
if you use it ;-). Anyway the license is MIT I believe, so you could
do whatever you want ;-). Keep me informed of the results.
Markus Gaelli a écrit:
> Hi Romain,
>>> And on the flip side, it might be nice to have a QuickTestCase too, that
>>> can be run all the time - like, every time you accept a method...
>> Hey, neat idea ... I got to put that on my todo list for BrowseUnit ;-)
> So do you plan to connect that QuickTestCase - I think I call it
> one-method test ;-) -
> to the method under test?
> A one-method test is dedicated to one method and, as it is _explicitly_
> linked to that method, could be executed as soon as this method is
> The most lightweight solution to explicitly create this link (I can think
> of ), would be to denote _the method under test_ in the test using a
> comment just before the call of the method under test: (here "test")
> AccountTest >> testWithdrawOkFrom123
> |anAccount |
> anAccount:= AccountTest new testDeposit100On123.
> anAccount withdraw: 60.
> self assert: anAccount balance = 40.
> This is one part of the story. Another is, that tests could be composed,
> so that if its tests are called by other tests, this other tests should be
> In the example above only "AccountTest >> testWithdrawOkFrom123" would be
> executed if I changed "Account >> deposit",
> as it calls "AccountTest >> testDeposit100On123", which _is_ focusing on
> "Account >> deposit".
> So composed tests should be a QuickTestCase for all explicitly linked
> Or do you plan to denote the tests in the method itself?
> I would prefer not, as you might run into problems with people who still
> :-) want to see their code independent of their tests, and who also want
> to rename a method without having to change the RefactoringBrowser, so
> that RB took denoting comments into account. (Above I can only use "test"
> and _not_ any name of a method to denote it...)
> Actually I have some weeks to do a prototype for an Oopsla workshop with
> the nice name:
> "Revival of Dynamic Languages" and I would like to use services and
> browse-unit. Would you mind if I did it? Or do you have other design
> issues / solutions in mind I should know about?
> My paper can be found on
> Thanks a lot for your very nice work on Services and BrowseUnit.
More information about the Squeak-dev