Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages

[Marek Kubica <marek@xivilization.net>]

Hello Cedric,

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:36:59 +0100
Cedric Cellier <rixed@happyleptic.org> wrote:

> > But having the test code in a comment
> > seems ugly to me. Maybe there could be some CamlP4 hack to exclude
> > it on normal compilation?
> 
> Since you mentioned python, a culture where
> unit tests are routinely written in
> comments, Im surprised by your opinion.
> Do you think all tests in comments are ugly or is there something
> specific to batteries tests that make these ugly?

Actually, In Python tests are not routinely written in comments. They
are usually written in Files called test_whatever.py as test_whatever
functions. Afterwards, people use test discovery tools like nose or
py.test that search for such modules and construct JUnit-style TestCase
classes out of these funtions and execute them.

The advantage is that writing a test only requires to write a single
function and does not need registration. Before there were test
discovery tools people wrote test methods in test classes and executed
that manually -- that is, they didn't write tests really, because it
was terribly tedious.

Your point about tests in comments is not entirely unbased: there are
doctests which are written in document comments and represent a
recorded console session that gets played back as test. Fancy concept,
but not many people use it.

In my opinion I dislike unit tests in comments, also because you throw
away editor support and it feels hackish, especially if the language
has a way of syntactic extension. Python doctests are on the verge of
unreadability, but given it is meant as a console session, it is still
kind of okay though not perfect.

Hope that answer helps you :)

regards,
Marek