[Grok-dev] Re: Suggested contents for a skeleton functional doctest
tseaver at palladion.com
Fri Aug 17 12:57:15 EDT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Grok-dev