danielv at netvision.net.il
Sat Mar 1 01:59:32 CET 2003
Why generate a class? this could make things hard to find. Just make a
tool that adds a new method to "MiscTestCase". Maybe we won't accept
this mess into the image <g>, but it makes adding a test trivial, and if
it's good, it certainly can be maintained by someone on SM, and it's
very easy to factor it out into it's own class in time.
Mike Roberts <mike at mjr104.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:39:52PM +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:
> > Add a place to Squeak where it's _really_ easy to write a single
> > test without having to make a class first
> I like your thoughts. How about a 'Test Pit' which is similar to a Workspace but allows you to write simple assertions about what you are testing. I can imagine how it would work but don't know how to implement it... (except in Python). Could you bind a subset of the methods of TestCase into the scope of the workspace so you could just write quick statements and then hit a button to do-it all and give you a quick result. Or maybe you could have a global QuickTest bound in the workspace which provided assert: deny: etc. Then you could possibly hit a button to generate a proper class for you after asking you for the name. If the text in the workspace only used the protocol of TestCase then it could just become the body of a test - you could neaten it up/ improve with the browser(s) later.
> The only thing I'm not quite sure about is getting the objects in that you want to test if they already exist somewhere. Maybe you could enable morph-workspace dropping, although I haven't played with that yet so I'm not exactly sure how that works.
> Does this sound like what you had in mind?
> If this was in the Tools flap then you could grab it out, write a test and then there could be suitable buttons for 'mail to list' etc.
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation