From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Ohler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ert.el --- Emacs Lisp Regression Testing Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:32:45 +0100 Message-ID: <477F6ADD.2060003@fastmail.net> References: <47782302.5000201@fastmail.net> <477829B9.1070406@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199532896 32504 80.91.229.12 (5 Jan 2008 11:34:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 05 12:35:17 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 1JB7J6-0001WO-LQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:35:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JB7Ij-0004we-SV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JB7If-0004vx-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JB7Ie-0004vF-9H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JB7Ie-0004v7-3P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JB7Id-0004Fb-U3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A770B82EFA; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 06:34:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:34:47 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: eF+voQfmmGTveUyMclUds5iNHCrCRdBNl5U0FC1ZDuV5 1199532887 Original-Received: from kraut.local (unknown [92.226.146.197]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCB527AF0; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 06:34:46 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <477829B9.1070406@gmail.com> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:86141 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007-12-31: > I will try to test it ;-) Please do so -- perhaps by writing a few test cases for Emacs ;-) > One thing that might be handy is something that runs selected entries in > a new instance of Emacs, starting from either "emacs" or "emacs -Q". I > think that is one of the most common things I do when I am testing. ERT currently allows you to run your tests in a fresh emacs by running emacs -Q --batch --load my-tests.el --eval '(ert-run-tests-batch t)' in a terminal (or possibly under M-x compile, but I haven't tried that). However, that would be an edit-compile-run development cycle. I am much more productive programming and testing interactively in one single Emacs instance. I see two main reasons for running tests in a separate Emacs: For testing without customizations (emacs -Q) or other Emacs versions, and for long-running test suites that you don't want to block your main Emacs instance with. So far, the above method was sufficient for me in those situations (because tests that have already succeeded in my Emacs rarely fail in a separate one, so I rarely missed ERT's interactive debugging facilities). Maybe IELM could be used to implement a convenient interface for running an inferior Emacs that runs the tests (which could, in turn, involve running another nested Emacs in M-x term). This even sounds like an interesting project to implement. However, to get started building test suites for Emacs or Elisp packages, the current options are probably sufficient. Christian.