Re: [Pharo-users] Pyret: adding tests directly into classes
Esteban said <<< Hi, It does not really matters where you put the test. What matters is to have the tools that show them properly, and we are going in that direction. We already have ways to "jump to tests" in Nautilus, and we will continue improving that to show them together (for example). But I do not think the tests need to be *in* the class definition to have same level of interoperation. Esteban
I agree. The actual architecture doesn't matter. The critical factor is making it as easy as possible to write/navigate tests. I didn't know about the Nautilus features. I shall have to go and experiment. Also, thinking about Doru's point. I wonder if we could write tests/examples in the comments section of code. It might be an interesting addition
Hi, the good thing about the current practice of putting tests into another package/application is that you can separate them from your actual code for deployment (packaging), but you can also add them to your deliverable. If you mix code and tests, there may be good points about that, but in the end the limiting factor is the developer's discipline/motivation. And to some extent the quality of tools. The current state of test runners in most Smalltalk environments is not too bad. So I guess we need to educate people more towards writing tests, not change the place where they belong. Putting tests somewhere else than other Smalltalk's do would also start build hurdles to portability of tools between them. Would be a pity, wouldn't it? Just my 2 cents Joachim Am 17.11.13 19:58, schrieb Andy Burnett:
Esteban said
<<< Hi,
It does not really matters where you put the test. What matters is to have the tools that show them properly, and we are going in that direction. We already have ways to "jump to tests" in Nautilus, and we will continue improving that to show them together (for example). But I do not think the tests need to be *in* the class definition to have same level of interoperation.
Esteban
I agree. The actual architecture doesn't matter. The critical factor is making it as easy as possible to write/navigate tests. I didn't know about the Nautilus features. I shall have to go and experiment.
Also, thinking about Doru's point. I wonder if we could write tests/examples in the comments section of code. It might be an interesting addition
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
Agreed. And the more I use Pharo, the more I am looking into tests (especially "Debug Test" to understand how things do work) and writing tests first. That's not a natural thing to do in other environments but feels so great to do in Pharo. (Writing this after having looked at a ton of Seaside and Magritte tests :-) ). The image isn't regular when it comes to tests with some things being Tests-XXX at the end and KernelTests-XXX for example. And for my project I do have Project-Tests-XXX which keeps them close to the project categories (otherwise, I have to scroll too much [groups: good!]). It also helps to put everything in a single Project-XXX package when needed (which happened). BTW, how can one use the "Autotest" feature I saw demoed somewhere? Is that Moose-related? Phil On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, jtuchel@objektfabrik.de < jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
Hi,
the good thing about the current practice of putting tests into another package/application is that you can separate them from your actual code for deployment (packaging), but you can also add them to your deliverable. If you mix code and tests, there may be good points about that, but in the end the limiting factor is the developer's discipline/motivation. And to some extent the quality of tools. The current state of test runners in most Smalltalk environments is not too bad.
So I guess we need to educate people more towards writing tests, not change the place where they belong. Putting tests somewhere else than other Smalltalk's do would also start build hurdles to portability of tools between them. Would be a pity, wouldn't it?
Just my 2 cents
Joachim
Am 17.11.13 19:58, schrieb Andy Burnett:
Esteban said
<<< Hi,
It does not really matters where you put the test. What matters is to have the tools that show them properly, and we are going in that direction. We already have ways to "jump to tests" in Nautilus, and we will continue improving that to show them together (for example). But I do not think the tests need to be *in* the class definition to have same level of interoperation.
Esteban
I agree. The actual architecture doesn't matter. The critical factor is making it as easy as possible to write/navigate tests. I didn't know about the Nautilus features. I shall have to go and experiment.
Also, thinking about Doru's point. I wonder if we could write tests/examples in the comments section of code. It might be an interesting addition
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
participants (3)
-
Andy Burnett -
jtuchel＠objektfabrik.de -
phil＠highoctane.be