Ken Raeburn 8e7cacf139 Test signed narrow arguments in FFI better. 12 éve
..
lalr fb01fd8772 remove duplicate when/unless definitions 13 éve
standalone 8e7cacf139 Test signed narrow arguments in FFI better. 12 éve
test-suite d10f7b572c move (test-suite lib) to lower dir; cleans up uninstalled paths. 12 éve
tests cff1d39b20 Fix FFI struct sizing to account for trailing padding. 12 éve
vm 91a214ebd9 Improve the usage of variable names in Scheme docstrings. 13 éve
ChangeLog-2008 afb59d75b8 Rename `ChangeLog' files to `ChangeLog-2008'. 16 éve
Makefile.am 0ea5ba9ab9 Merge commit 'f66cbb99ee096186837536885d3436bb334df34d' 12 éve
README 88f5ea45d5 Revert "Note need for subscription to bug-guile@gnu.org." 16 éve
guile-test 1f845305c1 make guile-test work without configuration 14 éve

README

This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test
support code.

To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than
15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then.

For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage
instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script.

You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each
function explaining what's going on.

Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org.
We'll merge them into the distribution. All test suites must be
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to
collect assignment papers for them.



Some test suite philosophy:

GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests. Every time the
test suite catches a bug, it's great.

GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid
understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't
have time. You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it
doesn't cause any regressions." The subtext is, I made a change that
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be
okay.

I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of
why their changes are correct. The problem is that any test suite is
woefully incomplete. Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find.



Jim's rule for test suites:

Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise,
never a possibility you were prepared for. Any other attitude
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need
only because your understanding is weak.