Re: [PATCH v5] unit tests: Add a project plan document

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2023, 09:05 UTC
Message-ID: <e4a91a8f-0157-4b75-b864-31e37741d9ac@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZNwCSdrbuG3K/iMP@google.com>

Hi Josh

On 15/08/2023 23:55, Josh Steadmon wrote:

> On 2023.08.14 14:29, Phillip Wood wrote:
>> [...]

Show 11 quoted lines

>> I don't have a strong preference for which harness we use so long as it
>> provides a way to (a) run tests that previously failed tests first and (b)
>> run slow tests first. I do have a strong preference for using the same
>> harness for both the unit tests and the integration tests so developers
>> don't have to learn two different tools. Unless there is a problem with
>> prove it would probably make sense just to keep using that as the project
>> test harness.
> 
> To be clear, it sounds like both of these can be done with `prove`
> (using the various --state settings) without any further support from
> our unit tests, right?

Yes

> I see that we do have a "failed" target for
> re-running integration tests, but that relies on some test-lib.sh
> features that currently have no equivalent in the unit test framework.

Ooh, I didn't know about that, I think we could add something similar to the framework if we wanted.

Show 6 quoted lines

> [...]
>> It sounds like we're getting to the point where we have pinned down our
>> requirements and the available alternatives well enough to make a decision.
> 
> Yes, v6 will include your TAP implementation (I assume you are still OK
> if I include your patch in this series?).

Yes that's fine. I'm about to go off the list for a couple of weeks, I'll take a proper look at v6 once I'm back.

Best Wishes

Phillip