tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098836520432505250.post7152690422666633784..comments2022-11-02T00:49:40.622-07:00Comments on Cabal Testing Summer of Code: Changes to .cabal File FormatThomas Tuegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00544931944194441070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098836520432505250.post-67634580891847393932010-05-16T04:46:04.108-07:002010-05-16T04:46:04.108-07:00I think I like "executable" better than ...I think I like "executable" better than "legacy" since there are legitimate reasons to have tests that is just a binary (e.g. end-to-end tests, load tests).Johan Tibellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06875432206357419172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098836520432505250.post-62354515220294022452010-05-15T06:24:38.620-07:002010-05-15T06:24:38.620-07:00For that matter, why not "legacy" instea...For that matter, why not "legacy" instead of "executable"? We need some way to discourage people from using the executable interface for new test suites.<br /><br />As far as versioning: every test must have an explicitly listed interface version; we can't just default to the most recent version because we have no intention of maintaining backwards compatibility between different versions. I suggested encoding the version in the name to keep things concise. Obviously, if the consensus is that a separate field is better, I will go that direction; I just wanted to point out that it will be a required field for every test.Thomas Tuegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00544931944194441070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098836520432505250.post-91514109417447237522010-05-14T04:01:55.814-07:002010-05-14T04:01:55.814-07:00Bryan,
Would it be better if we kept the interfac...Bryan,<br /><br />Would it be better if we kept the interface version separate? Example:<br /><br />Test test-foo<br /> type: library<br /> interface-version: 1.0<br /> test-is: TestFoo.hs<br /> ...<br /><br />The reason we have an interface version is so that it's possible to compile a stub against the library and run the tests using that. I guess "executable" is clearer than "shell" (I stole the latter from the convention we use at work).Johan Tibellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06875432206357419172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098836520432505250.post-75247013492836234062010-05-13T11:09:45.134-07:002010-05-13T11:09:45.134-07:00I don't like this shell-1 and library-1 idea. ...I don't like this shell-1 and library-1 idea. The idea of encoding a numeric version into a name is quite silly.<br /><br />Also, you are conflating "shell" with "executable". If you expect a program that can be compiled into an executable, then name it "executable". Otherwise, I'd expect a shell script.Bryan O'Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06879597736161865857noreply@blogger.com