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: ert.el --- Emacs Lisp Regression Testing Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:48:06 -0800 Message-ID: <85ir2arbix.fsf@evri.com> References: <47782302.5000201@fastmail.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199386104 16120 80.91.229.12 (3 Jan 2008 18:48:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christian Ohler Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 03 19:48:43 2008 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 4.50) id 1JAV7T-0003le-9H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:48:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAV77-00033W-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:48:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAV72-00031q-UQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:48:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAV71-0002zv-PX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:48:15 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl017-040-091.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([69.17.40.91] helo=zimbra.evri.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAV71-0004Qk-9m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:48:15 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.evri.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D712924A18; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Score: -2.505 Original-Received: from zimbra.evri.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.evri.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AL7HuG4cFsiP; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from imp (dsl017-040-082.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [69.17.40.82]) by zimbra.evri.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9FB15CAA; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <47782302.5000201@fastmail.net> (Christian Ohler's message of "Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:00:18 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:86004 Archived-At: Christian Ohler writes: > I'm a big fan of automated testing/unit testing. However, it seems > that there is no widely-used testing framework for Emacs Lisp yet. > I've tried various packages (regress.el, elunit.el, elk-test.el, > XEmacs' test-harness.el, the code in slime.el, and cc-mode's tests), > but they're all either too simplistic, very specialized, or not very > Lispy. Your code looks very interesting. I'm the author of elunit. I'm obviously very interested in unit testing in Emacs Lisp (preferably test-driven development, but any tests are good.) elunit has mostly been driven by my own needs, so it's no surprise that it doesn't seem like a great fit for everyone, but I would love to see unit testing get more traction in the Emacs community, whether it's through elunit or ERT. ERT looks several orders of magnitude more complicated than elunit, but obviously it has a lot more functionality. I'm not so attached to elunit that I think it's the only way to go. I'd love to play around with this and see how it works. Perhaps we can merge our efforts. Richard's idea of using a sub-emacs for testing sounds pretty promising as well. I've beaten my head against the problem of testing with a fresh instance, and it's always been rather awkward. Running it in a term could make it easier to automate. Phil http://technomancy.us