I sent up another attempt for this:
https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-xctest/pull/10
Based on the discussion in that pull request, I'm now exploring using lit to
test the XCTest output.
Rather than asking contributors to install lit via the Python Package Index, I
was considering using the apple/llvm repository's copy. Contributors would need
to have cloned llvm in a specific directory relative to the cloned
swift-corelibs-xctest, like so:
rootdir/ llvm/ swift-corelibs-xctest/
This appears to be a convention in the Swift family of repositories, so I don't
anticipate this to cause confusion among contributors.
If anyone has any input on this approach to lit, or on the direction of these
changes in general, please let me know! All feedback is greatly appreciated.
- Brian Gesiak
_____________________________
From: Mike Ferris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [swift-corelibs-dev] [xctest] Who tests the tests?
To: Brian Gesiak <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Parker <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
Daniel Dunbar <[email protected]>
Oops. It was pointed out to me that XCTestObserver is deprecated. I get
it confused sometimes with its replacement.. What we’d presumably want to
pursue adding the the corelibs XCTest is the API from XCTestObservation.h (and
associated stuff).
Your same questions about the bundle stuff will still apply, though. On
the other hand, perhaps a partial implementation that at least allowed
observation starting at the test suites or even just at the test cases would
suffice to start things off.
Mike
On Dec 4, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Brian Gesiak <
[email protected]> wrote:
Excellent, thanks for the feedback everyone!
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Daniel Dunbar <
[email protected] > wrote:
It should be possible to use an out-of-process model that still
uses XCTest itself to run the tests. For example, in the package manager we
have some tests which spawn the package manager in order to test the end-to-end
behavior. Ideally we would only do this for a small number of tests that really
need this level of testing, and use unit testing for the rest.
I'll send a pull request with this approach, since I believe it's the
least invasive to the current API while still getting us regression
tests for the current implementation. Of course I'd be thrilled if
someone beats me to it! :)
On Dec 3, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Tony Parker <
[email protected]> wrote:
The reason I’m asking is that (like Foundation and dispatch), we’re trying to
keep the API surface of this XCTest very similar to the one that ships today
with Xcode. This will help developers who need to integrate their
cross-platform tests into suites that include features that Obj-C XCTest has
that we will probably not add to the Swift one (e.g., UI testing).
Absolutely agree. Still, once we have regression tests in place, I'd
love to start a conversation about whether we could provide a Obj-C
XCTest-compatible API layer on top of some more flexible architecture.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Mike Ferris <
[email protected]> wrote:
One possible direction to consider which would be more consistent with our
goals this year for API-compatibility would be to look into implementing
XCTestObserver.
Yes! Very exciting. We'll need to consider how methods like
`-[XCTestObservation testBundleWillStart:]` map to SwiftXCTest,
especially considering we don't use NSBundle at all (which I think is
a great thing). I'll be looking forward to participating in more
discussions on this mailing list.
- Brian Gesiak
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Mike Ferris < [email protected]
> wrote:
One possible direction to consider which would be more consistent with our
goals this year for API-compatibility would be to look into implementing
XCTestObserver.
Mike
On Dec 3, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Tony Parker < [email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Brian Gesiak < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello! This is in reference to
https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-xctest/pull/3. That pull request
contains a commit that attempts to refactor XCTest such that it is more
"unit-testable”.
Cool, thanks for looking into this area.
To do so, it gives XCTMain an additional parameter: a list of objects
conforming to the Reporter protocol. I think of this as a minimal, corelibs
equivalent to Apple's XCTest's XCTestObserver.h. I say "minimal" because
Reporter only defines Reporter.log(), whereas XCTestObserver has one method for
each kind of test event (started, failed, finished, etc.).
Do you think it’d be possible to split out the idea of adding this new API to
XCTest from getting some tests for XCTest itself?
The reason I’m asking is that (like Foundation and dispatch), we’re trying to
keep the API surface of this XCTest very similar to the one that ships today
with Xcode. This will help developers who need to integrate their
cross-platform tests into suites that include features that Obj-C XCTest has
that we will probably not add to the Swift one (e.g., UI testing).
We made a concession to language limitations with the XCTMain function, because
there is no way to dynamically discover all of the test cases. I’d really like
to get rid of it in the long term in favor of something else; maybe a
decoration like @testable that we could find automatically.
- Tony
These reporters are, for now, storied in a global array. In the future, I'd
like to discuss moving XCTest to a model in which all tests are (optionally)
run in sub-processes, each of which may (optionally) run in parallel. This
global array most certainly won't work for such a change, but for now, I simply
want to have regression tests on the project. It's hard to send pull requests
without knowing everything still works!
Besides this approach, which modifies XCTest in order to test it, it may be
more prudent to add tests *without* changing XCTest at all. To do so, I could
add tests that run programs that call XCTMain(), then verify what's printed to
stdout. This could be done using a Python script (which would go well with the
build script, also in Python).
I'd love input on which of these approaches sounds more viable. Other ideas are
also, of course, welcome!
- Brian Gesiak
_______________________________________________
swift-corelibs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-corelibs-dev
_______________________________________________
swift-corelibs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-corelibs-dev
