Re: test driven development for GNUstep

[Kaelin Colclasure]

On Feb 10, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:

> Adam Fedor wrote:
> > Just a check - is it going to get s complicated that we will wish we
> > had used a preexisting test framework? Or are the things we want to do
> > unique enough that it's worth it?
>
> The complicated stuff will be the tests themselves, and the entire -gui
> testing scheme (backend+stuff for defining event sequences and testing
> rendering output). Those things are unique.
>
> > Also, is it possible to separate the test framework from the tests so
> > it can be used by other projects (gdl2, Gorm, etc)?
>
> It's possible, but making things generic takes more work than making
> something specific. :) My primary interest lies in creating a test 
> suite
> for core/, but once the architecture is in place, I could look at
> extending it.
>
> The framework is geared towards testing libraries, so GDL2 should be
> easy to do, and unit tests for parts of apps are pretty 
> straightforward.
> Testing full apps would take a lot more work, although it is a logical
> thing to use the testing backend for.

I can see that using Sen:te's OCUnit for testing Foundation is a 
non-starter, since OCUnit itself depends on a working Foundation. (And 
obviously, OCUnit has nothing like the framework for GUI backend 
testing you're describing -- which I think is an ambitious project, but 
with a huge potential payoff.) But might it make sense to "sanction" 
OCUnit as the testing framework of choice for applications? This would 
allow Alexander to focus on a suite tailored to testing the core 
functionality and integrating smoothly with the build system. It would 
also give a welcome nod to folks who work (or would like to work) with 
both GNUstep and Cocoa, since OCUnit supports both.

-- Kaelin