On 21 Feb 2001, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Eric Pouech Eric.Pouech@wanadoo.fr writes:
[...]
So, this imposes to have the test programs also (compile) and run under windows... This could even allow (from source code for example) to have 3 test caes : 1/ compiled and running under windows 2/ compiled under windows, but run with wine 3/ compiled as a winelib app
The idea of using an interpreter like Perl is precisely that you don't need to compile anything to run tests. I think this is important because not everybody has a Windows compiler. It also allows using the exact same test script under Windows and Wine, so that you don't have to worry whether your Windows binary exactly matches your Winelib binary.
The downside of interpreter-based tests are: - they won't test the Winelib headers or Winelib specific issues - I imagine that some of our potential test writers would be windows programmers (after all these tests would be nothing more than simple Windows applications). They would probably be more comfortable writing tests in C/C++.
So I guess I would prefer C/C++ based regression tests but I'm not really opposed to interpreter based tests either. Let's get something rolling.
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ La terre est une bêta...