Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 75336a2: Merge branch 'feature/standard-test-location'

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 11/28/2015 11:20 PM, Phillip Lord wrote:

> In my experience, pulling from master leaves the "automatic" directory
> there, although it's gone from git. I'd expected it to delete when the
> equivalent was removed from git, but apparently not.

Apparently it's being left there as long as there are some untracked (or 
ignored) files inside.

> Well, there is a place for manual test material. ERT is good for doing
> unit tests, but some integration tests are likely to remain. But if a
> test is automatable, then I see no reason it should not run.

Right. But all "manual" tests we have now should be automatable, I think.

> I'd agree with this entirely, but this doesn't contradict the idea the
> idea of using ERT. I mean, ERT can read from a file right? It was for
> this purpose that I had the idea of "-resource" directories in the
> file location specification.

That sounds fine.

> If we need an indent test location, then I think this would be good to
> support, but it would be nice to have a standard naming scheme. I'd like
> to add support to the make file so that tests (or the .log file) depend
> on the file that they are testing. At the moment, if you edit (for
> example) lisp/calc/calc.el, and then run make check, the calc-tests.el
> file does not get run. This makes no sense to me. The same should be
> true with indentation tests.

'make check' runs all tests, doesn't it? Including calc-tests.el.

It would be nice to be able to run the tests corresponding to the 
current file only, but Makefile might not be the best place to implement 
that.

> My package lets you do something like...
>
> (ert-deftest indent
>     (should
>        (sisyphus-indentation=
>           'emacs-lisp-mode
>           "emacs-lisp-indented.el"
>           "emacs-lisp-unindented.el")))

The .el extension points to emacs-lisp-mode already, doesn't it? There's 
also the issue of customization variables that affect indentation: thus 
far we've put them into the files, but we might as well specify them 
programmatically here.

> I hadn't thought of the idea of unindenting first -- I shall add that.

Actually, having -unindented files seems largely unnecessary to me. I 
ported that idea straight from the test suite inside the Ruby core, but 
the benefits are relatively small, and that would double the number of 
files. But hey, we can try it both ways.

> It's got a "with-temp-buffers" macro also (for when you need several at
> once), and "with-preserved-buffer-list".
>
> Anyway, that package is early days yet. We shall see if it become useful
> as it develops.

Have you considered just adding a few functions to ert-x? As a first 
step, I mean.