Pure CL unit tests

[Marco Antoniotti]

+1 for FIVEAM

Only problem are fixtures not quite well documented and some variable naming a bit confusing.

Cheers
—
MA






> On May 5, 2018, at 21:07 , Red Daly <reddaly at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.  I implemented some tests using prove and fiveam. I'm thinking of going with fiveam because (1) there are docstrings for the public interface, and (2) test failures print the forms that failed, so finding the failed tests is easier.
> 
> I'm going through the OSS release process with my company before submitting a pull request. The only potential snag is the public domain license of slime, which is more complex legally than Apache 2, MIT, etc.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jeff Cunningham <jeffrey at jkcunningham.com> wrote:
> c:m-v-s => multiple-value-setq
> c:d-b => destructuring-bind
> 
> would be very handy also. :-)
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/24/2018 08:56 PM, Red Daly wrote:
> I'm modifying swank-c-p-c.lisp to complete "c:m-v-b" to cl:multiple-value-bind, and I would like to add a few unit tests for the swank-c-p-c code. There are only .el tests as of now, so perhaps there are opinions about including Common Lisp tests in the project.
> 
> Are there any objections to adding Common Lisp tests?
> 
> If so, does anyone have preferences for CL tests? (e.g., choice of library, file layout)
> 
> 
> 

--
Marco Antoniotti