=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_PATCH:_SIGNAL_a_condition_on_test_failures, _for_use_with_A?= SDF:TEST-SYSTEM

[Stelian Ionescu]

Hi Vladimir,

The idea of having a protocol between ASDF and test frameworks is very good, but I don't think this is enough.
I'd like to have something that gathers enough information to allow building a suitable integration with continuous integration systems (there are already a few ad-hoc ones around).
For example, a common taxonomy of test status is: SUCEEDED, FAILED, BROKEN, SKIPPED, NOTSTARTED.

Whatever support ends up in ASDF should be sufficient to allow outputting common rest report formats, such as JUnit, TAP, etc... otherwise we risk ending up with something that cannot be improved because users start relying on it and we don't want to break backwards compatibility.
Mainly for this reason I also won't merge the FiveAM pull request. Until the ASDF support is in, adding some support to FiveAM is premature.

> This could be done by having an `ASDF-SINGLE-TEST-FAILURE` and an `ASDF-TEST-FAILURE` and raising the first at each failure, but by default trapping them and bundling them into the `ASDF-TEST-FAILURE` condition.

> It might make sense to bundle FiveAM's test report *into* the `ASDF-TEST-FAILURE` (or subclass thereof), so that it can be printed at an appropriate time.

> On 14 Sep 2019, at 20:48, Vladimir Sedach wrote:

>> 

>> Hello!
>> 
>> I have a proposed patch to FiveAM on GitHub:
>> https://github.com/sionescu/fiveam/pull/58
>> 
>> I recently wrote a script to run FiveAM tests for one of my
>> libraries on many different implementations on your own machine:
>> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/uri-template/uri-template2/blob/master/run-tests.lisp
>> 
>> I do not want to copy-paste that script for all of my libraries. It
>> would be nice to contribute a generalized version of the script to
>> Roswell (on which the script is based), and just be able to say "ros
>> test my-system in all installed implementations" for any system.
>> 
>> The first step to doing that is to get ASDF:TEST-SYSTEM to report
>> errors using a common interface.
>> 
>> Because of the way ASDF is designed, ASDF:TEST-SYSTEM needs to use
>> conditions to signal test failures. I like this idea. Since you do
>> not have to handle conditions raised by SIGNAL, the functionality can
>> be added without impacting existing use or interfaces of FiveAM (the
>> use of WARNING instead of ERROR as the parent condition of
>> TEST-SPEC-FAILURE also ensures this, as many people tend to abuse
>> HANDLER-CASE to indiscriminately catch ERRORs).
>> 
>> With this patch, all projects that use FiveAM and define ASDF test-op
>> should be testable from a generic version of the Roswell script
>> without any changes.
>> 
>> The basic mechanism for test automation with FiveAM is then very
>> simple:
>> 
>> (handler-case (asdf:test-system "system")
>> (fiveam:test-spec-failure (condition)
>> (princ condition uiop:*stderr*)
>> (uiop:quit 1)))
>> 
>> Other test libraries can have supported added as well:
>> 
>> (handler-case (asdf:test-system "system")
>> ((or fiveam:test-spec-failure prove:test-failure) (condition)
>> (princ condition uiop:*stderr*)
>> (uiop:quit 1)))
>> 
>> The goal is to introduce a parent condition in ASDF that FiveAM, etc., will then inherit from:
>> 
>> (handler-case (asdf:test-system "system")
>> (asdf:test-failure (condition)
>> (princ condition uiop:*stderr*)
>> (uiop:quit 1)))
>> 
>> Ultimately, any system using any test library should be testable this way, ensuring that test automation becomes trivial to build.
>> 
>> I am going to propose adding the parent condition to ASDF, but in the
>> meantime (until the ASDF patch makes it to the repository, another
>> release comes out, release becomes widely available…), I would like to get this code into FiveAM.
>> 
>> Vladimir
>> 

> 


--
Stelian Ionescu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20190915/0046867e/attachment-0001.html>