[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: Unit tests for busybox
From:       Bartosz_Gołaszewski <bartekgola () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-12-20 10:07:11
Message-ID: CAFdkumgm9hpqXzOs2Lgr2JhQ9ZkSXNBrii=ZrAwUaNigkVJtUQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2013/11/20 Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>:
> I think it's best to keep tests in the same source files where
> tested function is. This way it's easier to see when
> the test needs to be tweaked when API is changed.
> This may also be the only way to test static functions.
>
> --
> vda

It depends on whether one wants to test only the public API (libbb in
this case) or 'private' functions as well.

If API changes affect the behaviour of any functions the tests will
fail anyway indicating the need for fixes. You're of course right for
the static functions.

Anyway - unit-tests suite can be just in the form of a new applet with
tests distributed among the relevant files and compiled out if this
applet is not selected.

-- =

Best regards,
Bartosz Go=B3aszewski
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]