On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:25 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote:
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?
Johan and I are talking about renaming the Tests type to just "Test" to be more consistent about pluralization. So, also incorporating the changes I think you are suggesting to the Group type, it would look like: data Test = Test TestInstance | Group { groupName :: String , concurrently :: Bool , groupTests :: [Test] , preGroup :: IO () , postGroup :: IO () } | ExtraOptions [OptionDescr] Test Test modules would export: tests :: IO [Test]
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.
The most important one I can think of would be testGroup :: String -> [Test] -> Test -- Make a Group with concurrently = True and no preGroup or postGroup I would expect test frameworks to provide interfaces that create a Test directly, rather than returning a TestInstance. I think that and the above function would cover all the common use cases. -- Thomas Tuegel