May 2020 - asdf-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[PATCH] Add a TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE condition for test libraries to sub-class
by Vladimir Sedach 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Hello! I recently wrote a script to run FiveAM tests for one of my libraries on many different implementations on your own machine: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/uri-template/uri-template2/blob/master/run-t… It would be really nice if I did not have to copy-paste that script to my other libraries, and instead could contribute a generalized version to Roswell (on which the script is based) and have it work for any project using any test library. What I would like to be able to do, for any system: (handler-case (asdf:test-system "system") (asdf:test-op-test-failure (condition) (princ condition uiop:*stderr*) (uiop:quit 1))) The attached patch adds an ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE condition that test libraries can inherit from. I also added the necessary functionality to FiveAM: https://github.com/sionescu/fiveam/pull/58 It should be easy to add similar functionality to other testing libraries. This will make test automation trivial, with few, if any, changes required to systems that use ASDF and the testing libraries. One thing I would like to discuss is which condition ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE should inherit from. It definitely should not be ERROR - there is no error in test-op, or in running the tests; test failures are a regular and expected occurrence of running tests. Also problematic is widespread abuse of HANDLER-CASE to catch any ERROR; I am afraid if signaled from popular test libraries it would break someone's test running code somewhere. WARNING seems like a nice parent condition, but maybe having ASDF:TEST-OP-TEST-FAILURE inherit from CONDITION is a better idea. Thoughts? Vladimir

4 15

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

1 0

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

3 2

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

RE: Re: ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

ASDF/INTERFACE::TRAVERSE-SUB-ACTIONS
by Marco Antoniotti 05 May '20

05 May '20

2 1

Help with random testing file system functions
by Paul Griffioen 05 May '20

05 May '20

Hi all, Would anybody be willing to help me with the clfs package I have written? The package defines contracts for all Common Lisp and UIOP file system operations and can run random tests with them. I would like to see what the random testing does on different combinations of lisp implementations and file systems, and if implementation independent contracts are feasible. If the package works across implementations then the contracts can help testing uiop and also each implementation's conformance to the hyperspec. The problem is of course that the operations are not defined that precisely, but results so far seem promising. I have run the tests on Linux and Windows for sbcl and ccl. At this point there are some edge cases left, but the general concept seems to work without too many implementation specific details in the contracts. The package can be found at https://github.com/lisper99/clfs. To run the test you have to load the clfs-test package, create an empty directory somewhere and call function clfs-test:test-contracts with the directory as argument. Any feedback or suggestions is appreciated. Paul Griffioen

1 0