[erlang-questions] I Hate Unit Testing...

Steve Davis steven.charles.davis@REDACTED
Wed Jan 28 16:04:42 CET 2009

Richard Carlsson wrote:
> Hmm. But if you compare the approaches, they are almost the same.

Almost, but significantly... not quite. No compile step.

> you might start to "extend" the input
> syntax with expressions, and end up with yet another language...).

Hopefully not. See my post from 6am that I believe shows why...

> And yet, your .app-file examples are practically as verbose as just
> writing the tests with eunit. 

...in that post I also ditched the idea of the app-style config file.

> If you want to save the step of creating a separate file, then by
> all means place the tests directly in the module you're writing,

...that could be a bit of a problem for version control (and 
code-bloat). Imagine wishing to add new tests after delivery (and the 
customer bitching about a bug you hadn't considered) ...how would you 
test their *same* build/codebase? All in all, test code *inside* the 
module is a **very-big-and-bad** idea... even evil.

> However, some direct eunit support for reading a comma-separated list
> of functions and input/output values could be handy. I'll add that to
> my feature list.

Very cool!


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list