Core test package

The http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=test-framework.r is the test framework used to test R2 and R3 core. Related scripts are: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=core-tests-run-safe.r and http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=core-tests-run.r demonstrating how to run the core tests. The core tests are in the http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=core-test-package.r The doc article is at: http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=n28vx I want to make some volunteers coauthors of the http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=core-test-package.r to help me adding new tests, and/or update the old ones. Please, contact me privately in case you are interested. -TIA Ladislav P.S. If you want to compare your test results, the last row in my %cpl_2_100_107_3_1.log file is: Total: 3822 Succeeded: 3769 Failed: 53 There is one issue I want to discuss: the test framework handles the tests as "chunks of text", thus, not needing to rely on accuracy of MOLD or MOLD/ALL, as well as being able to test even the loadability of the tests Due to the above reasons, I see this property of the test dialect as *absolutely essential*. Nevertheless, the textual character of the test cases is not "absolute", the test cases have to be in "propertly matched parentheses". This is actually a quite strong requirement, since e.g. a file containing a "test case" like: [ (])] , or: ["] as a different example aren't test cases, and a file containing them would not be considered well-formed. There is a possibility to relax this requirement even more using the heredoc convention, e.g. like this <<<mytest mytest , where the <<<mytest and mytest tags" mark the beginning and the end of the test. If this convention were chosen, the example test would become a "well-formed test" (which would fail being not loadable, though), as opposed to the current state. My question is, which alternative is preferred by people who intend to write (or even read) some tests.

Note: Sunanda is working on package downloader to work in R3 also, which is not the case yet. Give him a couple of days. Thanks. -Ladislav

> Note: Sunanda is working on package downloader to work in R3 also, > which is not the case yet. Give him a couple of days.

Sunanda wrote: {Here's an interim way of accessing the core-test file(s): do http://www.rebol.org/library/public/get-core-tests.r get-core-test %folder-to-save-test-files Lots of fun in doing that!} Thanks, Sunanda -Ladislav

> On 15/10/2010 14:18, Ladislav wrote: > Sunanda wrote: > > Here's an interim way of accessing the core-test file(s)

> > Lots of fun in doing that!} > > Thanks, Sunanda

Due to the following reasons: * GitHub is used for more REBOL-related projects * at GitHub, user rights can be adjusted more finely than at rebol.org * popular request * hoping, that this change will encourage more people to participate I decided to move REBOL test framework and core tests to http://github.com/rebolsource/rebol-test So, please try to run the tests, and have a look at the documentation: http://www.rebol.org/art-display-article.r?article=n28vx , and, eventually start to enhance the %core-tests.r test suite. The following areas are not covered yet (or covered incompletely), and can use your work: * PARSE tests (for R2, as well as for R3) * closure datatype tests * check, whether the percent! datatype is covered completely enough, comparing the tests to the tests that can be found at http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Percent * check, whether the CureCode tickets are covered, adding the missing tests * module! datatype tests -Ladislav

Oh, and I forgot to thank to Andreas, who started the repository and moved the file, so, Andreas, thank you. -Ladislav