From rossini at blindglobe.net  Wed Mar 17 22:21:14 2004
From: rossini at blindglobe.net (A.J. Rossini)
Date: Wed Mar 17 22:19:06 2004
Subject: [Rd] unit testing framework for R?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040317135528.055dad30@mailhost.blackmesacapital.com>
	(Tony Plate's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:58:01 -0700")
References: <EXCHANGEeTUgAHbx4Rr0000555e@exchange.systemsbiology.net>
	<6.0.3.0.2.20040317114224.056067e8@mailhost.blackmesacapital.com>
	<85oeqvz1i2.fsf@servant.blindglobe.net>
	<6.0.3.0.2.20040317135528.055dad30@mailhost.blackmesacapital.com>
Message-ID: <85n06fdvat.fsf@servant.blindglobe.net>

Tony Plate <tplate@blackmesacapital.com> writes:

> How would a "unit testing" framework look different?  (other than
> maybe the ability to pick and choose tests easily and run them
> quickly).

That is precisely it -- i.e. it's all testing, but it depends on
where and how the tests are intended.

(and then, how easy it is to write tests and run them..).

The basic principle for unit tests is that you can associate a test
with a particular unit of code, and relate the ability to run it to
the function.

So, one approach is to use the tests directory, with a file for
each function with tests, and then have a means to test.  This is
reasonably easy to do. 

The other issue is the ability to group tests by dependencies (again,
more of a UI functionality than a real problem).

So, I think the point I'm trying to hammer at is the interface, not
whether a framework which can be adopted is already in place.

best,
-tony

-- 
rossini@u.washington.edu            http://www.analytics.washington.edu/ 
Biomedical and Health Informatics   University of Washington
Biostatistics, SCHARP/HVTN          Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
UW (Tu/Th/F): 206-616-7630 FAX=206-543-3461 | Voicemail is unreliable
FHCRC  (M/W): 206-667-7025 FAX=206-667-4812 | use Email

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachme...{{dropped}}


[Rd] unit testing framework for R?
A.J. Rossini