Re: Perl 6 Test Organization

Dave Whipp wrote:

>Tanton Gibbs wrote:
>  
>
>>We also might want some way of specifying a test that will cause an
>>error...for example
>>0b19  ERROR
>>
>>I'm not exactly sure how to specify this, but it is often important to
>>document what is not allowed along with what is allowed.
>>    
>>
>
>I definitely agree that we need some error tests: I agree with your "ERROR"
>indicator as the trigger: but I need an example of what the output of the
>code-generator should look like. After that: yes, we should add a whole load
>of negative tests.
>

Well, Test::More has an C<isnt>, so C<Parrot::Test> should
have an <output_isnt>.  If not, it shouldn't be too hard to write
one.

I'll try to start on some error tests this weekend, at the latest.

>
>I think that it'd also be nice to get some consensus on which format of test
>we should maintain: the table version, or the raw-code version.
>

I think the consensus when Chromatic brought the subject
up was to use the testing system that Parrot uses; however,
your table version is kinda nice.

>
>
>Dave.
>
>
>
>
>  
>