[Haskell-cafe] Can everyone please update your code to the latest
QuickCheck, Parsec, and HaXml this week? Thanks!
jeremy at n-heptane.com
Sun Mar 28 20:11:20 EDT 2010
In the case of happstack, the happstack-util library provided a function
that converted QuickCheck unit tests into HUnit unit tests. happstack-util
exported this so that the other happstack-* packages could use it as well.
We did not actually have the unit tests themselves enabled by default.
Though that is actually a problem as well.
The theory (at the time) was that every happstack-* package would export its
unit tests. The top-level happstack package could then import all the unit
tests into a bigger testsuite and run them all. (And the bigger testsuite
would be re-exported so that you could include the happstack testsuite in
your applications own test suite).
>From a source code management viewpoint, it is nice to have the unit tests
in the package (such as happstack-data) so that we don't have twice as many
packages to deal with, and so that the source for the unit tests is included
when you get the package from hackage.
We should not simply make the unit tests be a compile time flag in the
.cabal, because there is no way for the happstack parent package to depend
on the version of happstack-data (for example) which has the unit tests
enable. So, the only solutions are:
1. always export the unit tests
2. create a separate cabal package for each happstack package which just
contains the unit tests.
The first option is much easier -- except that it requires QC, which is
especially problematic at the moment. So ultimately, we will have to move to
the second option I guess.
As a work around, we did just make all the QC related stuff enabled via a
flag. But it does cause problems when trying to build the test suite in the
buildbot because happstack-data gets rebuilt with out the tests enabled :(
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Shaw <jeremy at n-heptane.com> writes:
> > I keep running into issues where I want to use some version of parsec,
> > quickcheck, haxml, etc, in my code, but my code links against a
> > third party library (e.g. network) which uses a different version of the
> > library (e.g., parsec) than what I want to use, and that makes cabal
> > unhappy.
> Better (well, OK, maybe not _better_ per se but relevant) question: why
> isn't QuickCheck usage optional in so many of these libraries? There
> should be no reason for most people to build the testing functions,
> etc. in these libraries.
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe