-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 420
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Testing suite for LÖVE's APIs #1745
Comments
What do you think of using a pure lua solution such as bjornbytes/lust? I think it achives all the primary goals along with the stretch goals, except for generating an HTML file which might be tricky in lua. |
Generating a basic html file is probably not that hard though if you don't want too many bells and whistles in it (e.g. rxi's lovebird comes to mind) i looked at lust, it seems useful, though the "full-battery"/group/individual test stuff would probably need to be implemented on top of that. (and besides the toggleable ANSI console command stuff, it looks like it does not have any platform-specific deps) In my opinion, if a test makes LÖVE crash, then that's already a problem in and of itself, since that shouldn't really happen at all (if such a crash is fixed, then the test can continue, and if another crash happens, repeat ad completum); i do believe that using the same instance is probably good for most tests. What would be an easy way to help out regarding this issue, as in, contribute code? |
Well, what I use this folder structure in combination with luaunit. This will help me with two things at the moment.
Another thing I really like is |
Should the tests be more like:
|
@ellraiser implemented pretty much all of this in #1974, which is now merged into the 12.0-development branch in 36783d3 |
It would help the long term stability of LÖVE if there's a set of tests that verify whether certain LÖVE APIs function correctly, and the ability to add new tests or change existing tests with as little friction as possible.
We don't need something overengineered to start with - simple is good in my opinion, as long as it fits our needs. We can also start with a very small number of tests and add to them as time goes on, rather than worrying about building a robust amount immediately.
Primary goals:
Stretch goals:
Some questions I have:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: