I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
Red,
No objections whatsoever. I like Fiasco, FiveAM and RT, but feel free to suggest something else. swank/tests/*.lisp seems like the obvious spot, even though we have a couple of Scheme implementations of swank. The swank/tests system can live inside swank.asd perhaps.
What do you think? Feel free to suggest an alternative layout or test framework.
Cheers, Luís
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 04:57 Red Daly reddaly@gmail.com wrote:
I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
c:m-v-s => multiple-value-setq c:d-b => destructuring-bind
would be very handy also. :-)
--Jeff
On 04/24/2018 08:56 PM, Red Daly wrote:
I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
Thanks for the feedback. I implemented some tests using prove and fiveam. I'm thinking of going with fiveam because (1) there are docstrings for the public interface, and (2) test failures print the forms that failed, so finding the failed tests is easier.
I'm going through the OSS release process with my company before submitting a pull request. The only potential snag is the public domain license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software of slime, which is more complex legally than Apache 2, MIT, etc.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jeff Cunningham jeffrey@jkcunningham.com wrote:
c:m-v-s => multiple-value-setq c:d-b => destructuring-bind
would be very handy also. :-)
--Jeff
On 04/24/2018 08:56 PM, Red Daly wrote:
I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
+1 for FIVEAM
Only problem are fixtures not quite well documented and some variable naming a bit confusing.
Cheers — MA
On May 5, 2018, at 21:07 , Red Daly reddaly@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I implemented some tests using prove and fiveam. I'm thinking of going with fiveam because (1) there are docstrings for the public interface, and (2) test failures print the forms that failed, so finding the failed tests is easier.
I'm going through the OSS release process with my company before submitting a pull request. The only potential snag is the public domain license of slime, which is more complex legally than Apache 2, MIT, etc.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jeff Cunningham jeffrey@jkcunningham.com wrote: c:m-v-s => multiple-value-setq c:d-b => destructuring-bind
would be very handy also. :-)
--Jeff
On 04/24/2018 08:56 PM, Red Daly wrote: I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
-- Marco Antoniotti
-
Jeff Cunningham -
Luís Oliveira -
Marco Antoniotti -
Red Daly