Re: Tests, Documentation

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "graydon" == graydon hoare <address@hidden> writes:

This discussion should probably take place on mauve-discuss...

graydon>   - mauve should be arranged such that:
graydon> [ ... great stuff ... ]

I think any improvements to Mauve are to be welcomed, and anybody
willing to put effort into improving the harness should go for it.

graydon>     - it uses simple introspection conventions rather than scanning
graydon>       text in a source tree and writing makefiles for itself

When I wrote the original mauve code, I set it up this way because
different free java implementations had different class coverage.  So
if someone added a new test, there was no guarantee it could be
compiled against a given class library.  Hence, source-level scanning
to eliminate tests you know you aren't interested in.

This need may be alleviated these days, now that everybody is moving
to Classpath.  Things were a lot different 5 years ago.

graydon> these are not too much to ask; existing JUnit-based suites often
graydon> provide some or all these as extensions to the basic TestCase class,
graydon> and they make testing feel much more productive. 

In the past people have also suggested converting Mauve to JUnit.

Tom