rubyx/test
Torsten Ruger ee6f9d733b rename Mystery
just unknown, mystery should be more difficult to find out.
After all we keep run time info, so just need unknown at compile time
2015-06-11 07:04:14 +02:00
..
arm revert to symbols 2015-05-31 18:34:18 +03:00
bench arm program to generate optimal devision code for constants 2014-05-15 16:53:47 +03:00
fragments getting the symbols to work 2015-06-01 08:33:23 +03:00
parfait fix lists first 2015-05-31 13:26:47 +03:00
virtual rename Mystery 2015-06-11 07:04:14 +02:00
graph_helper.rb get thnads tests to work 2014-04-24 15:53:48 +03:00
helper.rb more symbol related fixes 2015-06-01 17:31:35 +03:00
README.md move sof to own repo 2015-05-03 20:38:13 +03:00
test_all.rb fixes parfaits hash by implementing array 2015-05-12 18:52:01 +03:00
test_runner.rb work on ObjectWriter 2015-05-16 12:53:10 +03:00

Testing

Testing is off course great, and well practised in the ruby community. Good tests exists in the parts where functionality is clear: Parsing and binary generation.

But it is difficult to write tests when you don't know what the functionality is. Also TDD does not really help as it assumes you know what you're doing.

I used minitest / test-unit as the framewok, just because it is lighter and thus when the time comes to move to salama, less work.

All

'''' ruby test/test_all.rb ''''

vm

As this is all quite new, i tend to test only when i know that the functionality will stay that way. Otherwise it's just too much effort to rewrite and rewrite the tests.

There used to be better tests, but rewrites bring fluctuation, so poke around and make suggestion :-)