[Grok-dev] Re: Suggested contents for a skeleton functional doctest

Tres Seaver tseaver at palladion.com
Fri Aug 17 12:57:15 EDT 2007

Hash: SHA1

Martijn Faassen wrote:

>>> Are we really talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about code
>>> in tests, but I'm talking about test setup code like the stuff above.
>>> If you are talking about that too, then we can safely say we disagree
>>> very much.
> So were we talking about the same thing?

I don't know.  I said I had no problem with the boilerplate required to
tell the testrunner which tests to run.  I *vastly* prefer that to be
explicit vs. the implicity "discover tests via heuristics" choice.

> I can understand code generators that actually generate something useful 
> from another representation of the information: classes from a UML 
> diagram, for instance.
> I don't understand code generators that generate the same thing over and 
> over again, as it's just too annoying to set it up manually. I can 
> accept that in some situations it has to be done, but I'd like it to be 
> the last impulse towards a solution, after other ways to solve the 
> underlying problems have been explored. I don't think that in the case 
> of test setup code we've exhausted our explorations yet.

grokproject already generates the initial (minimal) application module
and makes it "the same thing over and over again":  why not generate the
corresponding minimal test, too?

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Grok-dev mailing list