On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 12:11 +0100, Simon Sobisch wrote: > Thanks for your work on adding a testsuite. Can you please explain > why > you do this when a complete testsuite exists in autoconf (autotest) > format (which roots back to decade of work in GnuCOBOL, with all > copyrights for that already with the FSF)? > > Is the existence of this in upstream [1] just unknown (because it was > not part of the initial patches [for reasons I not understood])? > > Is the format such a big issue (note: previous discussions elaborated > "a > test suite is very important and other frontends also use a framework > other than dejagnu)? > > If dejagnu is the way to go: > > * Shouldn't there be deprecation of autotest in autoconf (of course > only > if that preference is also outside of gcc)? > > * Shouldn't there be a (at least semi automated) script / migration > tool > (at least for this specific time in place to convert the "UAT" once > into > dejagnu format)? > > > > Thanks for giving me some context on this, > Simon > > > [1]: > https://gitlab.cobolworx.com/COBOLworx/gcc-cobol/-/tree/master+cobol/gcc/cobol/UAT >
Hi Simon Does the UAT testsuite have coverage for what happens on invalid code? For example, in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-March/677481.html my patch adds test coverage for the output on one kind of typo (or, at least, I tried to, my knowledge of COBOL is essentially 0); I put this in Richard's DejaGnu suite since I have lots of similar tests for other frontends. Having a good user experience on incorrect code is important, so we need some kind of test coverage for this. The new DejaGnu-based tests seem to work well for that (as per the patch). I don't know if this is something that could/should be shared with GnuCOBOL, given that there might well be differences in error-handling behavior between GCC COBOL and GnuCOBOL. Thoughts? Dave
