Re: Unit tests for a #lang implementation

Matthias,

> Matthew’s response is probably all you want in principle,
> but I think that your ‘unit test’ looks like another person’s
> ‘integration tests’. Both are useful.
> 
> Wouldn’t you want to use unit tests to validate the parser
> independently of the macros that expand the S-expression
> syntax you create with the parser? If you then discover a
> failure, it becomes much easier to search for the bug in
> either of the two pieces. (I understand that there are many
> more pieces but let’s say ‘two’ for now.)

Thanks for your reply!

I guess what I want to do is somewhere in between unit and integration 
tests. I don't really care much about the labels.

I do have unit tests for the low-level implementation details of my 
#lang. They are plain Racket functions with straightforward tests.

What I want to write additional tests for is

  1) The macros that expand the S-expression for my module

  2) Some of the functions used in the expansion, for which
     suitable input is difficult to generate without those
     macros.

The parser is not my problem - it's borrowed from Scribble and 
presumable tested by someone else :-)

Konrad.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.