From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25541 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2002 14:07:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25531 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2002 14:07:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web10005.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.130.41) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2002 14:07:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20020718140743.27339.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [139.19.24.27] by web10005.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:07:43 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:07:00 -0000 From: Dalibor Topic Subject: Re: [Kissme-general] Re: Should I or not submit changes? To: Mark Wielaard , Andrew Haley Cc: Brian Jones , Stephen Crawley , John Leuner , Alex Lau , kissme-general@lists.sourceforge.net, mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <1026999108.6501.80.camel@elsschot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-q3/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 --- Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 16:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > > If mauve wasn't such a pain to use and hack on I > certainly would have > > contributed more to it. Dejagnu, although > horrible in its own special > > way, at least allows individual tests to be > developed and used without > > needing the framework. > > I was thinking of having very simple support for > "output comparison" > tests. You write a bla/test.java class with a normal > static main method > that just prints to System.out.println and there is > a bla/test.out file > that contains the correct output of the test. The > only drawback is that > when people explicitly use Testlet.check() it is > much more clear what it > is they are precisely testing. Kaffe's regression testing suite relies mostly on output comparison. While it's a great way to create tests in a minute, it's not that great in the end. Sometimes the output depends on the locale you are in, so people get erraneous failures. Sometimes people will include toString() output in the expected results, which is quite painful when you test for exceptions. Unless you want to match Sun's messages literally, of course. In my opinion, explicit check methods that verify single properties are more useful, as it is easier to extract context information about failures, most importantly which test failed. That is really hard if something messes up your tests output beyound the region matching capabilities of diff. best regards, dalibor topic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com