Andrew

Andrew Berg <andrew_c_berg at pop.mail.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> That's a bit funny.  I consider myself a novice, and I also get a similar 
> failed test:
> TestUUIDPrimatives>>testCreationRandom
> 
> I fiddled about with the debugger for a while but didn't really get 
> anywhere toward figuring out what was wrong.  it looked like UUID's were 
> being made, but then the test was looking for some specific bits to be in 
> some specific pattern, and they were not.  I'm stuck there.
> 
> -andrew

Actually SUnit tests are there to show if bugs are present or not. If a
test fails that means that a bug is present. It may be in the test or
the target software. Software often has bugs. The bug you see is not the
only one in the Squeak image but it is visible for anybody because of
the SUnit tests. For this reason Tim Rowledge wants to remove the SUnit
tests to lower the visibility in the final release (you will then have
to load SUnit and the tests from SqueakMap to do the tests).

As an illustration I add an email by Doug Way below.

-- Hannes


P.S. You know,  even an unnamed large software company ships software
with bugs.
But they don't provide the tools to easily detect them ....  ;-)
That these kinds of questions are discussed shows that we have an
emerging testing 
culture within the Squeak community. In the long run having these tests
will
speed up the develoment process enourmously. At the moment most tests
are performed
by harvesters inspecting at the code, putting it in the update stream
and waiting
if somebody complains. This waiting process is responsible for long
release cycles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------




> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:06:03 -0500
> From: Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com>
> Subject: Failing SUnit tests in 3.4b
> 
> One thing that would be nice for any "final" Squeak release, such as 
> 3.4, is to have the SUnit tests all passing.
> 
> There are currently a few tests which are failing.  Oddly enough, they 
> are different tests on different platforms, which means they're either 
> VM-related or otherwise platform-specific (such as the platform-specific 
> stuff in *FileDirectory, etc.)
> 
> Here is what I am seeing with the current 3.4beta-5156:
> 
> On Mac OS X (Carbon VM 3.2.8Beta9, and CocoaSqueak-3.2.4):
> ------------
> 3 failed:
> FileDirectoryTests>>testDeleteDirectory
> FileDirectoryTests>>testDirectoryExists
> FileDirectoryTests>>testExists
> 1 with errors:
> FileList2ModalDialogsTest>>testModalFolderSelector  (these 
> failures/errors were not in 3.2)
> 
> On Windows 2000 (3.2.3 VM / Tea 1.8 VM):
> ----------------
> 1 failed:
> TestUUIDPrimitives>>testCreationRandom  (this failure was also in 3.2)
> 
> 
> (Are any tests failing under Linux?)
> 
> Anyway, I seem to remember something on the list around the time of the 
> FileDirectory fixes, about a change still needing to be made in the VM, 
> or in the tests, or something. :-)
> 
> There are a few other fixes afoot right now for 3.4beta (including one 
> related to UUID).  It would also be nice to get these tests cleaned up 
> while we're at it.  Any insight on these would be appeciated.
> 
> - Doug Way