From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Phil Hagelberg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: unit test framework Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: <31edf1081003191200k7f76711eyc753e6544bbb7a9c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100318.163911.560917315840337376.yamato@redhat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269025507 18479 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2010 19:05:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nikolaj Schumacher , web@shellarchive.co.uk, Masatake YAMATO , ohler+emacs@fastmail.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rubikitch , Stefan Monnier To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 19 20:04:57 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NshVA-0003Zs-CV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:04:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46413 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NshV9-0003nN-In for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:04:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NshQd-0007G0-LK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43857 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NshQa-0007Cs-NG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NshQZ-0007Sn-4n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:00:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f176.google.com ([209.85.222.176]:51670) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NshQY-0007SY-W7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so2474360pzk.25 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.143.26.16 with SMTP id d16mr898995wfj.287.1269025208048; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122304 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I asked long ago for a comparision on EmacsWiki: > > =C2=A0http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/UnitTesting > > However there have not been any interest in that. If have cc:ed the > unit test framework authors, maybe they want to say something. > > I am not sure which of them have signed papers: > > =C2=A0ert: Christian Ohler > =C2=A0elunit: Phil Hagelberg > =C2=A0elk-test: Nikolaj Schumacher > =C2=A0etest: Phil Jackson > =C2=A0el-mock: rubikitch elunit is deprecated in favour of ert, so it should not be considered for inclusion. When I was investigating the options (~2 years ago), ert was the clear winner, though I don't remember the details clearly. Mostly it had to do with having the clearest failure reports. Beyond that there were not a lot of differences; unit testing is a pretty straightforward task. Things may have changed since then. -Phil