Re: "Test results" Per Bothner (15 Aug 2005 20:40 UTC)
Re: "Test results" Donovan Kolbly (16 Aug 2005 18:10 UTC)
Re: "Test results" Alex Shinn (18 Aug 2005 14:08 UTC)
Re: "Test results" Donovan Kolbly (16 Aug 2005 19:49 UTC)
Re: "Test results" Per Bothner (16 Aug 2005 20:04 UTC)
Re: "Test results" Donovan Kolbly (16 Aug 2005 21:12 UTC)

Re: "Test results" Per Bothner 16 Aug 2005 20:03 UTC

Donovan Kolbly wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Per Bothner wrote:
>
>> A test runner maintains a set of "result properties" associated with
>> the current or most recent test.  (I.e. the properties of the
>> most recent test are available as long as a new test hasn't started.)
>>
>> Each property has a name (a symbol) and a value (any value).
>> Some properties are standard or set by the implementation.
>
>
> We should clarify the semantics of attempting to set a standard
> property. For example, is it legal to set the 'kind property?

I would say that is undefined.

Generally properties would be set by the implementation,
and read by the test-runner.  In some cases a test-runner
might add some extra properties, but I expect that to be
rare - offhand I don't see any use case for that.

> Would that cause test-runner-pass-count and friends to be adjusted?

Undefined.

> What about setting the 'kind property before the test has completed?
>
> And anyway, what is the value of the 'kind property for a test that is
> in progress?  I supposed it would just not be set.

Yes.

 >> (test-result-ref [runner] 'pname [default])

 > Hmm.  I think statically ambiguous interfaces are confusing.

 > If you see the following (admittedly poorly written) code fragment:

 >   (test-result-ref x y)

you will need much more information (perhaps located arbitrarily far
away in the program) to understand what is actually being done.  Is the
property denoted by y of runner x being accessed, or is property x of
the current runner being accessed, with a default value of y?

We can pick one. I'd say here x is the runner and y the 'pname.

Perhaps we should just make these [runner] arguments required.
It's important to have a convenient/terse syntax for test suites,
but there is little value in making test-runner code maximally terse.

 >> Returns the property value associated with the pname property name.
 >> If there is no value assocate with 'pname return default,
 >> or #t if default isn't specified.

 > Why #t?  I would think that #f, as the Most Distinguished Value, is a
 > more useful default default.

That was a typo.  I meant to write #f.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/