I posted the "Kernel-Tests-ClassBuilder" tests to SqueakMap. I think it would be better to have tests in package-size chunks, like that.
Goran, how about adding a "Tests" category to SqueakMap? Marcus, you could be the Steward of that whole category. That would be A Very Good Thing.
-----Original Message----- From: Ned Konz [mailto:ned@bike-nomad.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:06 AM To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Collecting tests?
On Friday 28 February 2003 04:08 am, Marcus Denker wrote:
Question: Would it make sense to start collecting tests for the base image?
As opposed to misplacing them? Of course it would.
What I have in mind is a SqueakMap Package that contains all tests that get posted to the list. Just as a kind of ad-hoc facility until better things are established.
That sounds like a great idea. Do you want to maintain this?
Thanks,
Goran, how about adding a "Tests" category to SqueakMap? Marcus, you could be the Steward of that whole category. That would be A Very Good Thing.
<gut feeling> Automate. Make it simple for people to write tests, to use them. Add a [TEST] prefix to the "list of known prefixes", filter it (perhaps right with the SQFIXES), bundle them, update them regularly and send out [ANN] to Squeak-Dev. Add a place to Squeak where it's _really_ easy to write a single test without having to make a class first - for example, SqueakTests could just be a set of unassorted tests people can write if they're in the mood to. Tests live from their shere number - you've got to make it Really Simple (tm) to provide one. Encourage newbies to write tests in order to learn the system - if you "think this should happen then write a test to see if it does". Once it gets green post it as [TEST]. Tell people that "this is the easiest way to get your code into Squeak". Any test will be accepted no matter how small, no matter how large. Keep it simple, fast, easy to do and easy to "earn points" in the community. </gut feeling>
- Andreas
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.
Mike
Hmm, +1, even better. Tests should have a fast track into the image. Guides, image stewards, what do you say ? Could [TEST]'s get added to the update stream on a weekly basis ?
No reason Marcus shouldn't start a squeakmap package for right now, of course.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:37:05AM -0800, Simon Michael wrote:
Hmm, +1, even better. Tests should have a fast track into the image. Guides, image stewards, what do you say ? Could [TEST]'s get added to the update stream on a weekly basis ?
We want to start breaking Squeak into lots of packages. SUnit 3.1 should be one of those. And you can't add stuff to the base-image that depends on a specific package.
So I vote for having all base-image tests in a dedicated package. This package could have it's own update-stream.
(For the 3.5 release we could tink about a scheme where we have a "base image" (as much removed as possible) and a "release image" (An image with most of the functionality as today, but build from installing packages into the base image).
With such a scheme we could start taking Squeak apart even without having to wait for SqueakMap supporting dependencies and virtual packages (aka Distributions).
Marcus
Hi all!
Simon Michael simon@joyful.com wrote:
Hmm, +1, even better. Tests should have a fast track into the image. Guides, image stewards, what do you say ? Could [TEST]'s get added to the update stream on a weekly basis ?
(deep breath, think of fluffy clouds, deep breath again) :-)
Seriously:
We are all of us struggling to break the image apart into packages. (pause to let that sink in)
Question: Why would we then want to add tests to the *image*?
Package, package, package, package, package. Please stop thinking in terms of the image. Of course, we can set up a fast track into a *package*. But not the image.
regards, Göran
PS. Not at all annoyed - I was just trying to joke a bit and get some attention to this IMHO fundamental mindset. :-)
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:15:16AM -0500, Brent Vukmer wrote:
I posted the "Kernel-Tests-ClassBuilder" tests to SqueakMap. I think it would be better to have tests in package-size chunks, like that.
Yes, exactly: One test-package per SqueakMap Package. And one for the image (because that's not on SquakMap). If we really manage to make Squeak modular, this will shrink until it ends up to be the "Kernel-Test" package. (and then it could be maintained by the maintainer of the Kernel-package).
Goran, how about adding a "Tests" category to SqueakMap? Marcus, you could be the Steward of that whole category.
Yes, we should have a default-maintainer for all test-packages that the package-maintainer him/herself don't want to manage...
Marcus
Hi all!
(back from snowboarding and beer)
"Brent Vukmer" bvukmer@blackboard.com wrote:
I posted the "Kernel-Tests-ClassBuilder" tests to SqueakMap. I think it would be better to have tests in package-size chunks, like that.
Goran, how about adding a "Tests" category to SqueakMap?
Sure, consider it done. I also like the idea of having a test package for each regular package (and one for the image - I just saw it on SM, good).
And in SM1.1 I am introducing "links" between packages etc so at that time we can associate them with each other without relying on the name - or perhaps we just let a package have a special relationship with "its test package". But name convention is ok for now - package names can be changed on SM anyway.
regards, Göran
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Brent Vukmer -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se -
Marcus Denker -
Mike Roberts -
Simon Michael