1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-05-02 04:40:29 +02:00
guile/test-suite
2001-01-24 21:46:04 +00:00
..
tests * tests/ports.test: include (ice-9 rdelim) module. 2001-01-24 21:46:04 +00:00
.cvsignore Ignore tmp[123] files 2000-01-26 01:26:30 +00:00
ChangeLog * tests/ports.test: include (ice-9 rdelim) module. 2001-01-24 21:46:04 +00:00
COPYING Copyleft files. 1999-05-30 09:22:12 +00:00
guile-test Adopted a couple of nice ideas from Greg. 2000-05-08 17:42:03 +00:00
lib.scm * lib.scm (pass-if, expect-fail): Generalized. 2000-08-21 08:57:11 +00:00
paths.scm * paths.scm: Assume that ~/guile-core/test-suite is the location 2000-01-16 22:03:44 +00:00
README More tweaks. 2000-03-22 21:24:31 +00:00

This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test
support code.

To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than
15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then.

To run the test suite, you'll need to:
- edit the path to the guile interpreter in `guile-test', and 
- edit the paths in `paths.scm', so `guile-test' can find the test
  scripts.

Once that's done, you can just run the `guile-test' script.  That
script has usage instructions in the comments at the top.

You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each
function explaining what's going on.

Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org.
We'll merge them into the distribution.  All test suites must be
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to
collect assignment papers for them.



Some test suite philosophy:

GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests.  Every time the
test suite catches a bug, it's great.

GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid
understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't
have time.  You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it
doesn't cause any regressions."  The subtext is, I made a change that
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be
okay.

I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of
why their changes are correct.  The problem is that any test suite is
woefully incomplete.  Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find.



Jim's rule for test suites:

Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise,
never a possibility you were prepared for.  Any other attitude
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need
only because your understanding is weak.