From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Location of tests (again) (was Re: Makefile-help) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:45:52 +0200 Message-ID: <83twoyowwf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d1vpoees.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87r3k3igy1.fsf@russet.org.uk> <86io5ewbhg.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <8737wiyt75.fsf_-_@russet.org.uk> <87k2pucaw3.fsf@russet.org.uk> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446896780 22817 80.91.229.3 (7 Nov 2015 11:46:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 11:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 07 12:46:10 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zv1wf-0003GI-Al for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 12:46:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43360 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zv1we-0002xS-OA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:46:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zv1wb-0002xL-Fi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:46:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zv1wW-0003XR-FP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:46:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:40240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zv1wW-0003XH-78 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:46:00 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NXG00L000C1J500@mtaout28.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:44:52 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NXG00FYE0MSSE50@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:44:52 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87k2pucaw3.fsf@russet.org.uk> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.184 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193515 Archived-At: > From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) > Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:22:04 +0000 > Cc: Stephen Leake , > Emacs developers > > Juanma Barranquero writes: > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Phillip Lord > > wrote: > > > >> Some one suggested to > >> but tests of C core ~test/automated/src~ which sounded good. But > >> thinking about it, it probably makes more sense to leave this for C > >> level testing framework. So now we have > >> > >> test/automated/lisp > >> test/automated/lisp/emacs-lisp > >> test/automated/lisp/progmodes (and so on....) > >> test/automated/lisp/c (lisp tests for the C core) > > > > This breaks the symmetry between our source layout and the test layout. > > It does, and I think this is unfortunate. Sorry, I don't understand why not use the simpler test/automated/src (tests for the C core) test/automated/lisp test/automated/lisp/emacs-lisp ... > > In fact, it seems to me like a nice property that if we have both C and > > elisp tests for, say, keymap.c, then keymap-tests.c and keymap-tests.el are > > in close proximity. > > I thought about that. Obviously it makes the Makefile harder (since you > need one that can cope with both the C framework and the Lisp > framework), which is why I though to keep things separate. This seemed > worth breaking the symmetry. We don't have any C framework, and I very much doubt we will any time soon. (I don't even think it's feasible, since Emacs is not a library, and doesn't provide a way of exercising it from a C program.) We can move files again if and when we do, just like we intend to move files now. OTOH, breaking the symmetry on behalf of a feature we don't have doesn't sound right to me.