Re: Cabal's detailed test interface

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:25 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote:

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote:

...

Speaking of IO, do we ever need to deal with test suites that need imperative setup and teardown for sets of tests? Individual tests can do setup and teardown via the Progress which embeds IO. Does HUnit allow IO for sets/groups of tests?

I can see the utility of this. It would be simple enough to have Group take an (IO [Tests]) instead of just [Tests].

Note that that's not quite the same thing. That lets you do IO to enumerate the tests, not IO before and after running a group of tests. I'm slightly confused about what you and Johan are talking about with [Tests] etc. Can you post what the new proposed data types are please? As for convenience functions, I don't know if it's worth it. We're not expecting packages to implement this directly. It'll just be for packages like test-framework to implement. But if they're cheap and obvious then I don't object strongly. Duncan