[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unit testing
From: |
Chris Yate |
Subject: |
Re: Unit testing |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:57:47 +0000 |
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 20:32 Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> That's what I thought, and that's of course a good thing. But would it be
> conceivable to actually start doing unit tests? One should probably not be
> frightened by the issue that we won't be able to apply that backwardly, to
> the existing code.
>
> Urs
>
>
It's an excellent idea Urs; and I for one feel very uneasy writing code
without a test framework.
I think the problem is, how would you define an assertion, and what are you
intending to test (i.e. what's the Subject Under Test?). I think something
like Lilypond might require some quite elaborate test fixtures / fakes.
There are probably C++ functions you could test with a C++ assert based
test framework - Catch for example - or something simpler. Obviously
anything doing a bit of maths is easy to test; the interesting functions
tend to manipulate "Grob" objects; would the tests be examining their
properties after the function call?
But what about Scheme code?...
Chris