Hey Chris,
Thanks for the quick response. I took a look at the link you posted. The syntax I used was most heavily influenced by that in lisp-unit because what any given function or macro did was very clear from the name without having to read the documentation first. Names like ASSERT-TRUE and ASSERT-EQUAL are pretty self explanatory! Also the syntax is very simple and easy to read and use.
Because the syntax is so close to that of lisp-unit I will make a quick translation with a few changes and test it. The changes would be as shown below, the rest is pretty much the same.
(in-package :cs325-user) ;;; Define a suite for all our tests since CLUnit only groups according to test suites instead of the implicit package grouping in lisp-unit. (defsuite cs325-user ()) (define-test testname . body) -> (deftest testname (cs325-user) . body)
I had left out ASSERT-PRINTS simply because I had not considered its uses well enough. But after you pointed it out, I realised having a built in form
to test the messages you print in your library would be very handy.
The definition of ASSERT-TRUE that I used is actually a predicate tester according to its common use in Lisp conditional forms such as IF and WHEN. I figured if you want to test for the specific value T you would use (assert-eq t form).
(assert-equality 'set-equal '(car) (functions-referenced '(car l))) -> (assert-true (set-equal '(car) (functions-referenced '(car l)))
There is an idea I have been toying with in my head. It seems the library generally works now so I think its now safe to write unit tests for the library itself. Now, I obviously need test the lower level functions and make
sure that they are doing the correct thing. So I have a situation were I want to test A and B, but since B depends of A, if A fails its test there is no point testing B. I would need to first fix A before I can trust what B will do.
Basically, I want to be able to short circuit tests. I want to add this without changing the current behaviour. Since execution of tests in a test suite is unordered, you would place the dependent tests in a child test suite.
So something like this:
1. (defsuite A ()) 2. (defsuite B (A)) 3. Define low level function tests in A. 4. Define tests in B that depend on functions tested in A.
5. (run-suite 'A :stop-on-fail t)
The RUN-SUITE keyword argument :use-debugger, is for interactive tests, this option would work for short circuiting batch tests. What do you think?
On 10 November 2012 21:28, Christopher K Riesbeck < c-riesbeck@northwestern.edu> wrote:
On a quick skim, looks like nice work. If you want to see if it handles a lot of the cases (better or as well) that lisp-unit was designed for, see
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/academics/courses/325/programs/exercise-tests...
This is what tests my students' solutions to exercises from Graham and elsewhere. I'd prefer to use a standard test framework in my class, but I would want that particular file to continue to be simple for novices to read and understand, since they're the target audience.
I'll try making the translation myself sometime but it won't be for the next few months at least, due to time constraints.
I notice that you didn't include an "assert-prints" though obviously it's not hard to use some wrapper macro like
(assert-equal "...." (collect-output (print-dots 4)))I would recommend adding something comparable to lisp-unit's assert-equality that lets you handle special equality testers, like set-equal, epsilon-equal, etc. (I used to call it assert-predicate but that implied a unary rather than binary predicate.)
Nice job.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Tapiwa Gutu wrote:
Faithful hackers,
I decided to take up the challenge laid down here http://fare.livejournal.com/169346.html and try to consolidate the Common Lisp unit testing frameworks. I have written a framework that aims to consolidate all the major features of all your frameworks mentioned in this blog http://aperiodic.net/phil/archives/Geekery/notes-on-lisp-testing-frameworks.... .
You can find it on Github https://github.com/tgutu/clunit. I also wrote a blog on the development of the framework and reasons for it here http://ml.sun.ac.za/2012/11/09/developing-a-unit-test-framework-part-1/if you are interested.
I would very much appreciate it, if you could join me in this effort and we all work together torwards making this project a success.
Regards, Tapiwa
Christopher Riesbeck Home page: http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck Calendar: http://calendar.yahoo.com/criesbeck