[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Replacing Guile test-suite with SRFI-64?
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: Replacing Guile test-suite with SRFI-64? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Sep 2023 00:27:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 |
Op 23-09-2023 om 17:13 schreef Mike Gran:
Hi,
Would a rewrite of the Guile tests using SRFI-64 be a welcome idea?
IMO the advantages of doing so are:
...
Opinions?
IMHO, I think Guile should not depend too heavily on Guile for testing itself.
It is bad bootstrapping practice.
Whether you use Guile's custom test utilities or SRFI-64, in both cases
you are equally depending on Guile to test itself.
A benefit of SRFI-64 is that the SRFI-64 implementation has tests
whereas (IIRC) Guile's custom thing doesn't.
Another benefit is that the SRFI-64 implementation is also tested in
other Scheme implementations, which partially mitigates the ‘tester
testing itself’ issue (it turns out that it has bugs, see patch by
Taylan Kammer (*)).
Also, there are not bootstrapping issues, because Guile is built before
the tests are run (‘make check’ implies ‘make’).
And personally, I find that errors in srfi-64 tests are more difficult to
interpret
that errors in the guile test suite framework. The logging is worse.
There is a not-yet-applied patch (*) that changes the SRFI
implementation to be better, but I don't know if it improves error
messages and logging.
If there is anything concrete you consider worse about error reporting
in SRFI-64, perhaps the test runner could simply be tweaked to fix that.
(*) https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2021-05/msg00007.html
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Replacing Guile test-suite with SRFI-64?, Bruno Victal, 2023/09/26