[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: proposal for a test harness
- From: James Teh <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:16:32 +1000
On 1/03/2012 11:58 PM, Christian Egli wrote:
All the options you gave yesterday and your example today is far more verbose
than my implementation.
Yes I agree with you. What I (really) like about the doctests is that
they are a standard and there is literally no support code involved.
The ugliest part about the doctest solution for me is the fact that the
test writer has to mess around importing the louis module themselves;
i.e. the sys.path hacking, etc. Aside from being ugly, it's a lot of
duplicated boilerplate. I think there should at least be a harness which
does the hackery so that the only thing needed is "import louis".
What I'm going to do now is to integrate both your stuff and the
doctests into the build system so they are both invoked when doing a
`make check`. That way a writer of tests can decide which way she likes
better and use that.
Multiple solutions makes for confusion and a steeper learning curve.
Some may feel they need to learn both solutions before they know which
they should use.
Jamie
--
James Teh
Director, NV Access Limited
Email: jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/
Phone: +61 7 5667 8372
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
