[Cuis] Canonical test cases?

[H. Hirzel]

The reason was

I only cherry picked the ApiFile class by manual loading.

After adding  Graphics-Files-Additional.pck.st manually it worked.

Another interesting test case is to write out a StrikeFont to the file
system in the proper
canonical export format (bmp and text) with a new name  and read it
back as a new font.

--Hannes

On 7/20/15, Phil (list) <pbpublist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 08:16 +0000, H. Hirzel wrote:
>> The file testResults.xml which Juan added has
>>
>> <testcase classname="ApiFile" name="testImagePNG01WriteToFile"
>> status="passed"/>
>> <testcase classname="ApiFile" name="testImagePNG02ReadFromFile"
>> status="passed"/>
>> <testcase classname="ApiFile" name="testText01WriteToFile"
>> status="passed"/>
>> <testcase classname="ApiFile" name="testText02ReadFromFile"
>> status="passed"/>
>>
>> So there is an issue of test setup which was not fullfilled in my
>> case....
>> Might be a Linux Mint issue (access rights)
>>
>
> I don't have the test in front of me right now but if I recall, the
> setup code exists to create a temp directory in the same directory the
> image was launched from to write the test files. (that was the best way
> I could come up with to not introduce any platform-specific path
> handling issues to the test)
>
> If the setup code failed, then the test would have probably failed.  Did
> you manually do anything or did it just work the 2nd time you ran it?
> (if it re-ran successfully without you needing to do anything else, it
> definitely sounds like a problem in the test setup.  If it were a rights
> issue, it should have continued to fail.)
>
> The good news is we're about to change all the file/directory handling
> code so it needs to be updated anyway...
>
>> On 7/20/15, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/20/15, Phil (list) <pbpublist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Hannes,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 23:52 +0000, H. Hirzel wrote:
>> >>> On 2/23/15, Phil (list) <pbpublist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 07:53 -0800, Ken.Dickey wrote:
>> >>> >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:38:44 +0000
>> >>> >> "H. Hirzel" <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > As Casey writes "The hard part is time and energy to do so."
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > So what can be done with minimal effort and big impact?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Looking around, I see that I could make some simple naming changes
>> >>> >> for
>> >>> >> test cases.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> E.g in package Crypto-Nacl there are test cases (class NaclTests)
>> >>> >>   testExampleHighlevel -> testNaclHiglLevelAPI
>> >>> >>   textExampleLowLevel -> testNaclLowLevelAPI
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> We could use other words, but API is shorter than Usage, Example,
>> >>> >> Interface.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Having specific test names end in 'API' would clue me in.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Adding 'Nacl' means I can use the existing message finder to
>> >>> >> search
>> >>> >> for
>> >>> >> 'api' and note testNacl*API methods.  This lets me find API tests
>> >>> >> specific
>> >>> >> to Nacl.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> And we can do this as I get the chance.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Other suggestions?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I started playing around with a couple of example test cases to see
>> >>> > what
>> >>> > I ran into and came up with a distinct class to store all of these
>> >>> > per
>> >>> > test category (i.e. under Test-Files a class ApiFile which could
>> >>> > have
>> >>> > a
>> >>> > method testWriteTextFile)  The rationale was that it might make
>> >>> > sense
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > keep these test cases separate from traditional test cases which
>> >>> > are
>> >>> > free to make calls that users of the class (i.e. who are calling
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > supported API) should not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Phil,
>> >>>
>> >>> where do you keep this class ApiFile?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's in Packages/Tests.pck.st package. After loading it will be listed
>> >> in the Tests-Files category.
>> >
>> >
>> > I loaded the class ApiFile only and I get 3 tests passed and 1 failure
>> > in Cuis 2.4-2424.
>> >
>> > Can you confirm this, Phil?
>> >
>> >>> regards
>> >>>
>> >>> Hannes
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Phil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Cuis mailing list
>> >> Cuis at jvuletich.org
>> >> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cuis mailing list
>> Cuis at jvuletich.org
>> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>