[racket] tests/eli-tester feedback (Was: Racket unit testing)

From: Jakub Piotr Cłapa (jpc-ml at zenburn.net)
Date: Thu Feb 17 08:18:40 EST 2011

On 13.02.11 21:59, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Schmiedl<s at xss.de>  wrote:
>> Naively speaking (and without reading any docs ;-), I'd expect =>
>> to handle "normal" operations. Using error-arrows is a good idea,
>> as it makes it clearly visible that there's something going on here
>> without clobbering the test descriptions.
>> In Robby's case (+ x 1) would raise an error, which would _not_
>> be caught by =>  but instead show up as normal exception.
>> I'm not convinced that you'd need more than one type of error arrow,
>> though.
> Syntax errors are sufficiently different that it seems warranted to
> me. It is just to easy to duplicate a syntax error on both sides of
> the =>  when you really meant to be testing something else (even an
> error condition). Unless you're testing a macro, after all, you don't
> want any syntax errors at all.

So maybe add an additional test-syntax form which "quotes" syntax errors 
so you can test them. And make the normal test form re-raise syntax errors.

I don't think that having to use a separate form just to test macros 
would be a bad idea.

Jakub Piotr Cłapa

Posted on the users mailing list.