[racket-dev] [racket] Disable/Enable Tests

That would also work.

Robby

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
<matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> I think we're over-complexifying the whole situation.
> Perhaps we should allow only one of these things to
> appear in the definitions buffer. We're talking about
> novice programmers. I don't expect them to use check-expect
> after semester 1 (or perhaps part of 2). I just don't think
> that this is a big deal. -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> If I put two -above's in a row does that push past the previous -below?  :)
>>
>> In all seriousness, this seems like a way for students to get confused
>> about what their programs are or aren't doing. It seems easy to lose
>> track of where the aboves and belows are.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this is not a performance issue, but an
>> issue of keeping track of which test cases are the interesting ones
>> while working on one part of a program. That is, we want a mechanism
>> to focus in on a section of the program and its test cases.
>>
>> If that's correct, then I think we have two better routes to pursue:
>>
>>  - multi-file programs
>>
>>  - better support in the GUI for showing us only some of the test
>> results (perhaps something to focus in on test cases that test
>> specific functions or something like that).
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see two sequences:
>>>
>>> -below ;; disables up to
>>>
>>> -above ;; here; disables up to -below and re-enables tests
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> -above ;; disables everything up to here and enables tests up to
>>>
>>> -below ;; here; disables tests below.
>>>
>>> Anything else? -- Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those two seem like they can combine in strange ways.
>>>>
>>>> Robby
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>>>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see adding both disable-tests-above and disable-tests-below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:54:06 -0500,
>>>>>> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>>>>>> I propose
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. to remove the menu and its functionality
>>>>>>> 2. to add a macro disable-tests-below
>>>>>>> 3. and be prepared to add a macro enable-tests-below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `disable-tests-below' makes it easy to accidentally skip running tests
>>>>>> altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider this scenario:
>>>>>> - A student works on an assignment, one problem at a time.
>>>>>> - Once a problem is done, he doesn't touch the code anymore, and
>>>>>>  wants to disable the tests.
>>>>>> - With `disable-tests-below', he needs to add it at the top of the
>>>>>>  file, and to add `enable-tests-below' before the problem he's now
>>>>>>  working on.
>>>>>> - If he forgets to add `enable-tests-below', no tests get run at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `disable-tests-above' would accomodate this workflow better. If the
>>>>>> student forgets to move it as he solves problems, then more tests get
>>>>>> run. No problem. That sounds like a better default to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I'm a bit uncomfortable with `disable-tests-above' affecting
>>>>>> the behavior of what comes before it. It may lead to confusing
>>>>>> situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A region-based solution also sounds good. Especially since (I assume)
>>>>>> only a small number of tests are actually expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>