[ruby-talk:00640] Re: ANN: testsupp.rb 0.1

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:00638] Re: ANN: testsupp.rb 0.1"
    on 99/08/12, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:
>> 1. test_section such as
>>      def test_section(what = "(No Title)")
>>        check(what)
>>        start_tests
>>        yield
>>        end_tests
>>      end
>
>Hmmm :-/ What do you want to do? Do you want to use it for a whole
>file? Because normally one test script should test more than one
>section, like the second example in the comment header of `testsupp.rb'.
>
>If you would use your test_section, it would restart the section
>numbering with (1) every time you use it. Is it that, what you expect?

Sorry for shortage of my words :-(
I intendet hierarchical test like as

  test_section("File processing") do
    test_section("open and close") do
      ok f = Foo.open("foo.txt")
      ok f.close
    end

    test_section("translation") do
      Foo.open("foo.txt"){
	ok f.translate(Foo:Japanese, Foo:English)
	ok f.translate(Foo:English)
      }
    end
  end

  test_section("Inline processing") do
    ...
  end

Of course, now TestSupp does not support such deep leveled nest. But,
I want categorization by block at least. I feel that start_test makes
blurred the range of each test block.

>> 2. quiet option for all method
>
>What dou you mean with it? What would a `quiet' option do? Suppress the
>whole output?

Yes. Usually I need only error report. 

>> 3. customizable output format
>
>How would you prefer it? The output is somewhat complex because I have
>tried to pay attention to the grammar numerus of the sentences. Because
>of the complexity, I think template handling would be too confusing. I
>could think about calling another user-defined method with the
>corresponding parameters. Let it decide how to format the text and how
>to handle the grammar. Would that be okay for you?

Well, a proposal is
  %C  for @catnum
  %T  for @testnum
  %N  for @ntests
  %W  for @what

Then use irb/main.rb:prompt() technic. How do you think?

>PS: I have currently another test library under developement. It is
>much more sophisticated and would pay attention regarding prerequisite
>testcases. You easily can write a parser that is able to parse the test
>description. Three parsers (until yet) are already contained in that

It sounds great!

>package. But I have to document it a little bit more... :)

By the way, would you try RD? CGI.rb (in contrib/) is a example for RD
documentation. And rd2html is generate html file from .rb file. 

-- gotoken