[squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] SUnit Time out
hernan.wilkinson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 11:37:24 UTC 2010
I completely agree
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> (Copying squeak-dev too).
> I'm not sold on the whole test timeout thing. When I run tests, I
> want to know the answer to the question, "is the software working?"
> Putting a timeout on tests trades a slower, but definitive, "yes" or
> "no" for a supposedly-faster "maybe". But is getting a "maybe" back
> really faster? I've just incurred the cost of running a test suite,
> but left without my answer. I get a "maybe", what am I supposed to do
> next? Find a faster machine? Hack into the code to fiddle with a
> timeout pragma? That's not faster..
> But, the reason given for the change was not for running tests
> interactively (the 99% case), rather, all tests form the beginning of
> time are now saddled with a timeout for the 1% case:
> "The purpose of the timeout is to catch issues like infinite loops,
> unexpected user input etc. in automated test environments."
> If tests are supposed to be quick (and deterministic) anyway, wouldn't
> an infinite loop or user-input be caught the first time the test was
> run (interactively)? Seriously, when you make software changes, we
> run the tests interactively first, and then the purpose of night-time
> automated test environment is to catch regressions on the merged
> In that case, the high-level test-controller which spits out the
> results could and should be responsible for handling "unexpected user
> input" and/or putting in a timeout, not each and every last test
> IMO, we want short tests, so let's just write them to be short. If
> they're too long, then the encouragement to shorten them comes from
> our own impatience of running them interactively. Running them in
> batch at night requires no patience, because we're sleeping, and
> besides, the batch processor should take responsibility for handling
> those rare scenarios at a higher-level..
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:53 AM, stephane ducasse
> <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
> > Hi guys
> > in Squeak andreas introduced the idea of test time out
> > Do you think that this is interesting?
> > Stef
> > SUnit
> > -----
> > All test cases now have an associated timeout after which the test is
> considered failed. The purpose of the timeout is to catch issues like
> infinite loops, unexpected user input etc. in automated test environments.
> Timeouts can be set on an individual test basis using the <timeout: seconds>
> tag or for an entire test case by implementing the #defaultTimeout method.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pharo-project mailing list
> > Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev