Wish List for Tests

Lukas wrote:
>It is ugly if tests leave garbage, but this is not really a problem
>for a continuous integration system. At least my setup always starts
>builds at a clean place.

I know that it is not a problem for rerunning. I mean the CI-System
should check that nothing is left after running all the tests
(maybe by using a test that is run as last test).

>SmallLint checks that. In PharoCore there are over 30000 lint issues.
>It is a lot of work to clean that all up. Several people already went
>through some of the most important rules and fixed them.

Method categories are good ... I totally miss them in Java, C#, ...

Currently we try to cleaning them up afterwards which is a lot of
work.

Maybe we find a way to enforce them as early as possible:
 - upon method creation
   menu item "create method" with a method template in the browser
   and an initial dialog to ask for the category
 - or checking before saving/uploading in Monticello

Stef wrote:
>4. We should have a consistent naming of Test-Package

I dislike this and I already mentioned that I would rather
follow a better scheme (the one from Seaside)

Class categories/packages are tyically sorted alphabetically
in the browser and other tools like Monticello.
So the code and the tests are not together in the tools
with this scheme.

And yes, real packages would be a plus ;)

>open bug entry  

done, see issue #2319

Adrian wrote:
>If you run this in a Pharo image, it also does not leave any dirty >packages, but obviously it does not remove the tests from external >packages. To achieve this, the maintainers of external packages would need >to separate the tests from the rest of their code.

I know ... when people see pharo they typically see "pharo-dev"
instead of "pharo-core". We want to shrink the core and grow the
dev image - both with the same quality. Question left is how we
can influence better quality for included external packages too...


Bye
T.


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>
> Stef wrote:
>> 4. We should have a consistent naming of Test-Package
>
> I dislike this and I already mentioned that I would rather
> follow a better scheme (the one from Seaside)

I hate all the conventions that are there just to accomodate MC.
I would prefer to have
        MyPackage-Tests
        MyPackage-Settings
        MyPackage-Stuff
        MyPackage-Core
       
>
> Class categories/packages are tyically sorted alphabetically
> in the browser and other tools like Monticello.
> So the code and the tests are not together in the tools
> with this scheme.

Yes I hate that too :)
I want object thinking everywhere so we are in sync.


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project