Cabal's detailed test interface
duncan.coutts at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 9 00:52:07 CEST 2011
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 21:25 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Duncan Coutts
> <duncan.coutts at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Speaking of IO, do we ever need to deal with test suites that need
> > imperative setup and teardown for sets of tests? Individual tests can do
> > setup and teardown via the Progress which embeds IO. Does HUnit allow IO
> > for sets/groups of tests?
> I can see the utility of this. It would be simple enough to have Group
> take an (IO [Tests]) instead of just [Tests].
Note that that's not quite the same thing. That lets you do IO to
enumerate the tests, not IO before and after running a group of tests.
I'm slightly confused about what you and Johan are talking about with
[Tests] etc. Can you post what the new proposed data types are please?
As for convenience functions, I don't know if it's worth it. We're not
expecting packages to implement this directly. It'll just be for
packages like test-framework to implement. But if they're cheap and
obvious then I don't object strongly.
More information about the cabal-devel