Test (re)numbering

Test (re)numbering

[Bart Schaefer]

I'd like to propose we renumber to the following numbering scheme:

00    : cd (the example test)
01-29 : Shell syntax and other features usable in scripts (no modules!)
30    : zmodload
31-49 : As 01-29, but for features loaded from modules
50    : zpty
51-   : Interactive-only features (e.g. completion)

This at least approximately follows a logical progression where most things
aren't attempted until other tests have been run on which they might depend.
This would let us specify that certain test failures (e.g. 30 and 50) abort
all tests that come after them, on the grounds that the remaining tests
can't possibly succeed.

Of course, the whole test system is likely to fail if anything in 00-30
fails, but short of rewriting ztst.zsh in Bourne I don't think we can do
anything about that.

I could easily be convinced that we should reserve more than 29 numbers for
basic shell tests, but I don't think fewer is wise.  Of course, the numbers
are presently ordered lexically, so 100-299, 1000-2999, etc. are available
if we need to shove more tests in "below" 30.  Which, if we start writing
tests for lots of combinations of setopts, we might need ...

Under the above scheme, we'd invent 30zmodload and 50zpty, and rename:

50cd.ztst		-->	00cd.ztst
51xtrace.ztst		-->	29xtrace.ztst
52zregexparse.ztst	-->	31zregexparse.ztst

and we'd also document the numbering scheme in a new Test/README or in
00cd.ztst or both.

Aside:  I wonder why zregexparse doesn't deserve it's own module ...

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Re: Test (re)numbering

[Peter Stephenson]

BArt wrote
> I'd like to propose we renumber to the following numbering scheme:
> 
> 00    : cd (the example test)
> 01-29 : Shell syntax and other features usable in scripts (no modules!)
> 30    : zmodload
> 31-49 : As 01-29, but for features loaded from modules
> 50    : zpty
> 51-   : Interactive-only features (e.g. completion)

The problems really start when we write tests for builtins, which we will
(`we' possibly being a euphemism in this case), and which could
proliferate.  There's no world digit shortage; we could just use
three-digit numbers along the lines of

0XX   shell syntax
1XX   builtins (i.e. builtin builtins)
2XX   zmodload and modules
3XX   zpty and interactive features

which means it's easy to remember where numbers for the group you're
writing tests in run out, and guarantees no more renumbering until zsh 8.0.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@cambridgesiliconradio.com>
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070

Re: Test (re)numbering

[Bart Schaefer]

On May 12,  9:55am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Test (re)numbering
}
} Bart wrote
} > I'd like to propose we renumber to the following numbering scheme:
} 
} There's no world digit shortage; we could just use three-digit numbers

Yes, and we probably should for 4.0 when we also massivly rename in the
Completion subdirectories.  I was aiming for minimal renaming for 3.1.7.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Re: Test (re)numbering

[Peter Stephenson]

Bart wrote
> Yes, and we probably should for 4.0 when we also massivly rename in the
> Completion subdirectories.  I was aiming for minimal renaming for 3.1.7.

Renaming twice strikes me as extra horrible from the CVS point of view.
I would say either rename to the final thing or not at all.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@cambridgesiliconradio.com>
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070

Re: Test (re)numbering

[Bart Schaefer]

On May 12, 11:08am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Test (re)numbering
}
} Bart wrote
} > Yes, and we probably should for 4.0 when we also massivly rename in the
} > Completion subdirectories.  I was aiming for minimal renaming for 3.1.7.
} 
} Renaming twice strikes me as extra horrible from the CVS point of view.

I was also operating under the assumption that we were going to start a
fresh repository for 4.0, so that the number of renamings is moot from
a CVS point of view.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com