From 817df620bedae9c1daa0497f64a901d51e5bd2dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:52:08 +0100 Subject: Some more IRC discussions. --- open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) (limited to 'open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn') diff --git a/open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn b/open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn index a5ffe19d..feda3be4 100644 --- a/open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/unit_testing.mdwn @@ -320,3 +320,23 @@ freenode, #hurd channel, 2011-03-07: this, and just generally though that some sort of automated testing is needed, and thus started collecting ideas. antrik: You're of course invited to fix that. + +IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-03-08 + +(After discussing the [[anatomy_of_a_hurd_system]].) + + so that's what your question is actually about? + so what I would imagine is a set of only-this-server tests for + each server, and then we can have fun adding composite tests + thus making debugging the composite scenarios a bit less tricky + indeed + and if you were trying to pass a composite test, it would also + help knowing that you still didn't break the server-only test + there are so many different things that can be tested... the + summer will only suffice to dip into this really :-) + yeah, I'm designing my proposal to focus on 1) make/use a + testing framework that fits the Hurd case very well 2) write some tests + and docs on how to write good tests + well, doesn't have to be *one* framework... unit testing and + regression testing are quite different things, which can be covered by + different frameworks -- cgit v1.2.3