[CLJ-1048] add test.generative to Clojure's tests Created: 21/Aug/12 Updated: 01/Mar/13 Resolved: 07/Sep/12 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Clojure |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | Release 1.5 |
| Type: | Enhancement | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Stuart Halloway | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Completed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Attachments: |
|
| Patch: | Code and Test |
| Approval: | Ok |
| Description |
|
The 0.1.5 release of test generative includes data generators and specs based on data generation, plus a runner that can run both c.t and c.t.g. tests under the same umbrella. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Stuart Halloway [ 21/Aug/12 10:26 PM ] |
|
Note that this patch also removes the cyclic load tests. Those tests relied on leaving broken code on the test classpath, which is very hostile to tooling (in this case the test runner's ability to walk the code in the test directory.) I believe such tests are an antipattern, and should be implemented differently or e.g. placed in an ancillary test suite. |
| Comment by Fogus [ 22/Aug/12 10:32 AM ] |
|
I agree with you position on the cyclic load tests. The patch looks sane to me and ran without hitch. A couple points of note:
[java] {:clojure.test/vars (test-equality),
[java] :thread/name "main",
[java] :pid 8682,
[java] :thread 1,
[java] :type :assert/fail,
[java] :level :warn,
[java] :test/actual (not (not true)),
[java] :test/expected (not (= nil nil)),
[java] :line 28,
[java] :tstamp 1345649256308,
[java] :file "data_structures.clj"}
In all, I like this! Now we need to start thinking up more specs. |
| Comment by Stuart Halloway [ 22/Aug/12 11:51 AM ] |
|
The stats reports are aggregate, i.e. they rollup both the generative and clojure.test stats. It would be straightforward to separate these in the report. I will look at doing that in the next drop of c.t.g. The output already includes stack traces for errors, but not for test failures. I thought this was consistent with clojure.test, but maybe I missed something. |
| Comment by Fogus [ 22/Aug/12 12:59 PM ] |
|
Thanks for the clarification Stu. You're right that the exception behavior is consistent, the confusion was my own. |
| Comment by Stuart Sierra [ 07/Sep/12 11:34 AM ] |
|
Patches have been applied as of September 1, 2012. |