Running automated or unit tests?

[John Ralls]

On Mar 8, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeff Kletsky wrote:

> On 3/8/2010 4:59 PM, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>> Maybe I'm blind, but I'm not seeing how to run unit/automated testing (or how to add more unit tests to the quite).
>> 
>> Would someone point me in the right direction so I can be more confident I'm not breaking things?
>> 
>> -j
> 
> make check??
> 
> The following Q&D patch (and similar to test-resolve-url.c) will fix the compile breakage, but looks like the WIP related to r18842 needs to complete before they pass.
> 
> diff --git a/src/core-utils/test/test-resolve-file-path.c b/src/core-utils/test/test-resolve-file-path.c
> index 8d89a3b..b6503a4 100644
> --- a/src/core-utils/test/test-resolve-file-path.c
> +++ b/src/core-utils/test/test-resolve-file-path.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
>             wantout = g_strdup(strs[i].output);
>         }
> 
> -        daout = xaccResolveFilePath(dain);
> +        daout = gnc_resolve_file_path(dain);
>         do_test_args(safe_strcmp(daout, wantout) == 0,
>                      "xaccResolveFilePath",
>                      __FILE__, __LINE__,
> 


Yes, `make check ` is the standard autotools way to run a test suite.

Looks like that's the appropriate change for xaccResolveFilePath. Test-resolve-url.c should be deleted, since there's no direct replacement for xaccResolveURL (it didn't do anything useful anyway), but Geert should write new tests to verify the behavior of his new functions.

Regards,
John Ralls