Hi again,
Any news on the dpkg testing framework? Could you do anything about that
on Debconf?
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 09:21:35PM -0500, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> [...]
> First of all there seem to be at least four distinct areas of testing:
> 1.) Unit tests for the C parts
> 2.) Run tests for the C implemented programs
> 3.) Unit tests for the Perl parts
> 4.) Run tests for the Perl implemented programs
>
> Parts 2 and 4 can probably implemented together, while the Parts 1
> and 4 are probably very specific in their implementations. Part 3
> is not an issue yet anyway since the perl code isn't written in
> a way that makes unit tests possible (although it's definetly a goal
> of me to change that - sometime).
I have experience in 3, some experience with 2 and 4 (they're basically
the same, anyway), and a little experience in 1 (with the "check" library, as
I said, for the dpkg testing framework proposal).
> I honestly only have some experiences with parts 3 and 4. So any
> implementation proposals for 1 and 2 (and thereby maybe 4) are certainly
> welcome.
Have you taken a look at my DejaGNU proposal? That would integrate the
four parts into a single testing interface, which would be very cool.
I've also started doing experiments with the Perl test output format
(TAP), now that there seems to be a C implementation (see the O'Reilly article
at http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2006/01/19/libtap.html). With that, we
could have the functional tests for both languages, written in Perl; the Perl
unittests, in the normal Perl test framework; and the C unittests, with
libtap, outputting the same format, so everything should be nice and
integrated.
Regards,
--
Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso@debian.org>
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature