On 8/14/2011 1:14 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> Changing tests is dangerous.  Without going back to the original code to make sure the original bug is still caught and tested for by the moved code or the altered to be a even more reduced test case, there's a real risk of a reduction in the quality of the test suite.  I'd personally LOVE it if not a single phobos import existed in any of the dmd test suite.  Possibly even true for druntime imports in the dmd test suite.  However, it's not clear that the benefits justify the risk.
>

Some library tests are probably infeasible to do as unit tests, such as:

1. tests that involve a whole bunch of modules working together (integration tests)

2. ones that are far more exhaustive than would be suitable for inclusion in the library source code.

3. The regexp tests, for another example, are under a different license than Phobos', so I think it would be inappropriate to fold them into std.regexp.d.

4. Tests that are cobbled up from some interesting application that may be completely unsuitable as being part of the library source code.

On Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:13:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/14/2011 1:14 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Changing tests is dangerous.  Without going back to the original code to make sure the original bug is still caught and tested for by the moved code or the altered to be a even more reduced test case, there's a real risk of a reduction in the quality of the test suite.  I'd personally LOVE it if not a single phobos import existed in any of the dmd test suite.  Possibly even true for druntime imports in the dmd test suite.  However, it's not clear that the benefits justify the risk.
>>
> 
> Some library tests are probably infeasible to do as unit tests, such as:
> 
> 1. tests that involve a whole bunch of modules working together (integration tests)
> 
> 2. ones that are far more exhaustive than would be suitable for inclusion in the library source code.
> 
> 3. The regexp tests, for another example, are under a different license than Phobos', so I think it wo
uld be
> inappropriate to fold them into std.regexp.d.
> 
> 4. Tests that are cobbled up from some interesting application that may be completely unsuitable as being part of the library source code.

None of that justifies them being part of the dmd test suite.  They're justifications for not being in unittest blocks inside the specific files in phobos.

On 14 August 2011 22:14, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> Changing tests is dangerous. ?Without going back to the original code to make sure the original bug is still caught and tested for by the moved code or the altered to be a even more reduced test case, there's a real risk of a reduction in the quality of the test suite. ?I'd personally LOVE it if not a single phobos import existed in any of the dmd test suite. ?Possibly even true for druntime imports in the dmd test suite. ?However, it's not clear that the benefits justify the risk.

There are a huge number of imports of std.stdio (most are probably
just for writefln), a large number of std.conv,
and quite a few import std.string. Imports of std.c modules aren't too
bad, either (most are just importing printf).

Apart from those, I think removing the others is an achievable goal.
The worst I found were two imports of std.random.rand and  std.stream
(which I have a pull request for) and:
* test60 imports std.algorithm
 ---> These tests should be moved to std.algorithm.
* xtest64 --> std. traits
  ---> This import was only introduced two months ago!! Should be in std.traits.
* test8 and stress import std.utf
* testthread2 imports std.random

* untag and variadic import lots of evil stuff
* test34 and testgc2 imports std.format
* quite a few import std.math. Most of those tests are already
duplicated in std.math.
* testsignals, testsocket, testmmfile, testdate, testzip test the
corresponding Phobos modules.



>
> On 8/14/2011 12:58 PM, kenji hara wrote:
>> I think that the dmd tests depends on phobos should move to.
>>
>> Kenji Hara
>>
>> 2011/8/15 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:
>>> From what I can tell, it's just testing std.date. I would have thought that that's the sort of testing that you'd do in std.date, not dmd. And since std.date has now been deprecated, it seems that that's breaking dmd's tests.
>>>
>>> So, does these tests need to be rewritten for std.datetime, or should we just get rid ouf them? I don't understand why the tests exist in the first place. It's the sort of thing that I would have expected to see in std.date, not dmd.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>

>________________________________
>From: Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
>
>On Sunday, August 14, 2011 13:11:29 Brad Roberts wrote:
>
>> Sorry for being blunter than I'd like to have been.. hard to figure out how to ask questions like this politely.
>
>Well, I'm certainly not trying to be rude at all or shove my point down anyone's throat, and I certainly understand that you weren't trying to be rude. I guess that I should try to relearn how to write out arguments in e- mails such that I don't repeat myself as much, though that'll probably take time.


In the continued spirit of not being rude but offering advice (I hope!), I find that my emails come out much much better if I proof read them several times before sending :)? I end up eliminating repetitive statements quite a bit, or making sentences less wordy/simpler.? One thing's for sure about emails, once you send them, they can be scrutinized by everyone, and you can't really change them.? It's much different than having a verbal conversation, where stumbling or being wordy is forgotten quickly.

In contrast to your statement about essays, I learned (in a computer science ethics class of all places) it was better to make things *less* repetitive for academic work.? My essays got 100% better with some tweaking here or there.? I also hate essays that require so many words, it forces repetition.

FWIW, the consistency of your repetition is ample evidence that you are not trying to be rude :)? It's just the way you write.

-Steve

Repetition is a necessary public speaking technique to help the audience remember what was said. Tell em what you're gonna say, say it, then tell em what you said. With writing, since the full text is available for review, repetition and wordiness in general just weakens the piece. It also complicates editing :-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Steve Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
>> 
>> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 13:11:29 Brad Roberts wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry for being blunter than I'd like to have been.. hard to figure out how to ask questions like this politely.
>> 
>> Well, I'm certainly not trying to be rude at all or shove my point down anyone's throat, and I certainly understand that you weren't trying to be rude. I guess that I should try to relearn how to write out arguments in e- mails such that I don't repeat myself as much, though that'll probably take time.
> 
> 
> In the continued spirit of not being rude but offering advice (I hope!), I find that my emails come out much much better if I proof read them several times before sending :)  I end up eliminating repetitive statements quite a bit, or making sentences less wordy/simpler.  One thing's for sure about emails, once you send them, they can be scrutinized by everyone, and you can't really change them.  It's much different than having a verbal conversation, where stumbling or being wordy is forgotten quickly.
> 
> In contrast to your statement about essays, I learned (in a computer science ethics class of all places) it was better to make things *less* repetitive for academic work.  My essays got 100% better with some tweaking here or there.  I also hate essays that require so many words, it forces repetition.
> 
> FWIW, the consistency of your repetition is ample evidence that you are not trying to be rude :)  It's just the way you write.
> 
> -Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals