[TIP] Usefulness of new tool?

[Andre Roberge]

On 6/27/07, Benji York <benji at benjiyork.com> wrote:
> Andre Roberge wrote:
> > Lately I have started writing doctest-based unit tests for Crunchy.
> > The approach I use is to write text files containing doctests and
> > comments.  It occurred to me that I could convert these text files
> > into html document usable by Crunchy.  I could modify Crunchy so that
> > it could, at the click of a button, execute all of the embedded
> > "doctest" code and display the result on the page.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see the benefit.  Can you can
> explain the advantages you perceive of doctests in HTML vs. doctests in
> text.

The only advantage I can think of, and it's a weak one I think, is
that they could be put on a website for people to browse - and, if
they want to try and diagnostic a problem use Crunchy to run them.

However, one can only do so one file at a time.  I suspect (at least
this is how I started to write my tests) that it's better to write one
text file per module.

I gather that your impression confirms my first assesment.

It is just an idea that I had that "could" make Crunchy more useful to
more people.  But I wanted to check with people on this list before
investing some time into something that was relatively straightforward
but possibly useless (there are quite a few other capabilities that
I'm planning to add to Crunchy, none of them having to do with
automated testing).

André
> --
> Benji York
> http://benjiyork.com
>