hi Duncan,
here it comes the split version of QC tests.
http://sites.google.com/site/rizsotto/patches/cabal-ticket-212-v2.darcs-send
Small changes I made:
- The properties are registered in the tests/suite.hs module, so they
are executed now.
- The main function reads arguments and passing them to the
test-framework. So, it can exercise them separately.
- Added -Wall ghc option in the suite cabal file.
Hope it's working for you!
Regards,
Laszlo
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Duncan
Coutts
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 22:32 +0200, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
Hi All,
Trying to create unit test suite.. work in progress. Comments are more than welcome!
http://sites.google.com/site/rizsotto/patches/cabal-ticket-212-v1.darcs-send
Hi Laszlo,
I'd like to get your tests integrated, in addition to the ones Stephen added recently. We can sort out the framework to use after getting them in. I expect Stephen is right that in the end we should use test-framework so that we can handle QC and HUnit based tests. It also looks like a reasonable framework generally.
However the first thing to do is to get your existing tests in. Can I ask you to make a couple minor organisational changes?
Instead of one massive tests/Test/Properties.hs file containing all the tests for the Distribution/* modules, could we use one module of properties for each module we're testing?
So for example you integrated the existing tests/Test/Distribution/Version.hs into your tests/Test/Properties.hs but perhaps we could do the reverse and split it out into tests/Test/Distribution/License.hs tests/Test/Distribution/Package.hs tests/Test/Distribution/Compiler.hs tests/Test/Distribution/System.hs tests/Test/Distribution/ModuleName.hs tests/Test/Distribution/PackageDescription.hs
That would make it much easier for someone to go and find the properties they're looking for. I realise that many tests will share the same utility functions and generators etc. That's fine. For example the Test.Distribution.System module would define the generator for the OS and Arch types which are needed eg in Test.Distribution.PackageDescription. So just import one in the other. For things which do not belong to a specific module, we can just use shared utility modules like the existing tests/Test/QuickCheck/Utils.hs or any other name that seems appropriate.
I wrote simple properties like this, for all data type
prop_parse x = x == parse $ display x
I did merged the existing QuickCheck test cases into one file. I found it easier to reuse the generator functions for different types.
My findings: - The System.Platform did not passed parse tests. The reason: both System.OS and System.Arch allowed the dash character in the name. But System.Platform text representation was concatenate the two strings separated by a dash. So I just simple removed the dash from them. Solved! ;)
Great. Could that be made into a separate patch from the addition of the tests? The commit message can say exactly what you just said in explanation of the change.
- VersionRange does not passes parse tests, iff more than two ranges is present. As far as I could see, the parse method is wired to handle only two ranges. Not corrected, because found no good solution. Need help on this!
Right, currently the parser only allows one conjunction and no brackets. There's an open ticket to allow more general expressions. http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/484 For the moment then it's ok for this test to fail. We can expect it'll be fixed when ticket #484 is completed.
- Package.Dependency also not passes parse tests. (It is depend on VersionRange success.)
Right.
- Compat.ReadR gather property is obsolete and does not compile. Can't figure it out how could I rewrite it. Need help!
Easy solution! The gather function is not used. We can just remove it :-)
- PackageDescription does not passes simple parse test. I guess the problem is with the test itself! ;) I used showPackageDescription method to generate string representation of this type and parse it back. I could not judge it is an expected behaviour or a bug. Need some explanation.
The showPackageDescription is totally borked. It really doesn't work at all. Again it's ok for the moment if this test just fails. I'll be motivation for someone to fix showPackageDescription.