Re: [Orgmode] Re: Testing --- again...

[Sebastian Rose]

"Eric Schulte" <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi,
>
> This is exciting.
>
> Rather than impose a complete directory/layout schema before-hand I'd
> lean towards starting with a little more chaos and then letting the
> structure of the test directory develop /naturally/.  From the
> discussion below it sounds like an initial structure of
>
> testing/lisp/
> testing/contrib/lisp/


I believe it makes sense enforcing rules.  Many developers plus power
users will want to be able to use the test system.  No system is what we
had in the past.

The idea is, to have a system to automate the laoding of tests.  How
should a function like `org-test-test-current-defun' find the tests
otherwise?

  sh$ cd org-mode
  sh$ find . -name '*.el' | wc -l
  146

Also, we could provide services like setup temporary directories,
buffers and files for tests.  This cannot be automated in a save way, if
there is no structure.  The tests are written in elisp.  Hence one could
do whatever he likes ;)

It's like Perl.  You don't need to follow the conventions, but it will
make your live easier (hopefully).

Just what I think.


> may make sense, reserving the top level for "meta" testing stuff, like
> functions for running tests, common fixtures, example files, etc...
>
> I have two questions.
>
> 1) while waiting for ert to be included into Emacs, should we include an
>    ert distribution as part of the Org-mode repository (maybe using git
>    sub-modules) or should we just agree that users should have a certain
>    version of ert installed locally?  I'm honestly not sure which of
>    these options sounds preferable.


I thought about this, too.  I guess not.  Developers and users that want
to test will be able to follow the current ERT git repo.

But ERT is just 7 *.el files plus 1 texinfo file.

An what I don't know is:

   How would git submodules work?




> 2) should the initial population of the testing/ directory take place in
>    a separate branch of the repository or in the master branch?  Again I
>    don't know which I would prefer, branches add complication but could
>    result in cleaner commit histories.


I'll start on a branch first and constantly rebase as long as the
structure evolves.  The first simple commit will be what you can see on
github, with some doc strings adjusted.

  

   Sebastian

  

> Best -- Eric
>
> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> the lack of a testing suite for Org-mode is really frustrating,
>> and even more frustrating is that we have had like seven attempts
>> to start one, and each of these lead to nothing.  So I would
>> be perfectly happy to give a free hand, write access to the repo
>> and a full directory in the distribution to implement one.
>> Once there is a framework, I am sure many people would be
>> willing to contribute tests.
>>
>> More comments below.
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought about testing again recently.  This is something, that never
>>> really got started.  For a reason:  there's no framework for testing.
>>>
>>> I therefore wrote a very rough proposal,  found  on
>>> http://github.com/SebastianRose/org-test
>>>
>>> The idea is, to provide two simple commands:
>>>
>>>
>>>  *  org-test-test-current-defun
>>>     will search for tests for the defun point is in or behind
>>>     (`beginning-of-defun') and execute them surrounded by
>>>
>>>  (let ((select (or selector "^org"))
>>>     (deactivate-mark nil))
>>>    (save-excursion
>>>      (save-match-data
>>>
>>>
>>>  *  org-test-test-buffer-file
>>>     will search for tests for the entire file and execute them the
>>> same
>>>     way.
>>
>> FIrst:  I have *no* clue about testing.
>>
>> Second, I am surprised that you want to structure it by function.  I
>> would have
>> thought that it could be structure by file at the most.  And then
>> there will
>> be tests that involve code from many files.
>>
>> But I guess
>>
>>>
>>> If you use one of these commands, all currently registered ERT tests
>>> are
>>> deleted, and files are reloaded (since you're likely to work on the
>>> tests, too).  To repeat the tests without reloading, you will use the
>>> ERT commands like `ert-results-rerun-all-tests', bound to `r' in the
>>> ERT
>>> results buffer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I choose ERT (git clone http://github.com/ohler/ert.git) because
>>> that's
>>> likely to go into Emacs core (or elpa.gnu.org).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea is to search the directory structure from the current source
>>> file upwards for a directory named "tests/" if it exists.  Else ask
>>> the
>>> user.  Similar to what `add-change-log-entry' does.
>>>
>>> Below that directory, a tree like the source tree exists:
>>>
>>> project
>>>   +-- lisp/
>>>   |     +-- a.el
>>>   |     `-- b/
>>>   |         +-- b.el
>>>   |
>>>   `-- tests/
>>>         +-- a.el/
>>>         |     +-- tests.el
>>>         |     `-- a-defun.el
>>>         `-- b/
>>>             +-- b.el/
>>>                   +-- tests.el
>>>                   `-- b-defun.el
>>>
>>> If this setup exists, when editing defun-x in lisp/a.el,
>>> `M-x org-test-test-current-defun' will load tests/a.el/defun-x.el
>>> (fallback: tests.el there) and execute all tests with selector
>>> "^a-defun".
>>
>> Well, OK, this is fine.  But under a.el and b.el there should also be
>> general tests that are not function dependent, and there should be a
>> place
>> to put tests that you do not want to assign to a specific file.
>>
>> We do have a "testing" directory already, you can use that.
>> I would prefer the tests to be in testing, not in lisp/testing
>> if possible. I would like to have the lisp directory contain
>> only code.  If possible.
>>
>> It would be OK to have a lisp subdirectory in testing,
>> just as it would be OK to have contrib/lisp in testing
>> for the contributed packages.
>>
>> PLEASE, go ahead.  I do not think you have write access
>> yet on repo - give me your user name and I'll activate you.
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>>> `M-x org-test-test-buffer-file' in that same source file will load all
>>> *.el files in tests/a.el/ and execute all ERT tests for selector "^a".
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus tests for
>>>    org-mode/lisp/org-protocol.el
>>> will be searched in the directory
>>>    org-mode/tests/lisp/org-protocol.el/*.el
>>>
>>>
>>> Once the basic route of testing is clear, I'd like to "translate" the
>>> existing tests for org-html.el to work with ERT, which will involve
>>> writing more tools (create output buffers, compare output with control
>>> files using ediff etc.).  I know Lennart Borgman has wrote that stuff
>>> for nXhtml already.  I hope we can use his stuff and help here.
>>>
>>> The directory org-mode/lisp/tests/ would not need to be part of the
>>> "official" Org mode package.  It could as well be checked out
>>> separately, if "tests" is part of org-mode/lisp/.gitignore (e.g.).
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Sebastian