Re: [gnet-devel] GNet tests

[Tim-Philipp Müller <t i m zen co uk>]

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 16:22 +0100, Robert Pes wrote:

Hi,

> I noticed there were 11 test suites, GNetABI, GNetBase64, GConn,
> GConnHttp, GNetHashes, GInetAddr, GNetIPv6, GNetMisc, GNetPacking,
> GNetUnpacking and GURI. While some of the test names are
> self-explaining (like GNetHashes is likely to test SHA and MD5),
> others are a bit mystery for me. As there is no test documentation, I
> was wondering whether you could provide me very short desc on the
> individual check tests, like which features each of them covers?

Err, no. You'll just have to read the source code, sorry.


> Do the check tests cover all or at least most of the major features?

I'd expect the tests to cover most, if not all, of the non-network API
(hashes, URI parsing, packing etc.), whereas in the case of API which
establishes network connections the coverage is probably a bit thinner,
just covering the main code paths / functions.

You'll find that tests/check/Makefile.am contains some make rules for
coverage stuff (copied over from GStreamer basically), but they probably
don't work because the stuff in configure.ac that goes with it is
missing. If you're familiar with autotools, you could have a look at
GStreamer's configure.ac and tests/check/Makefile.am and make the
coverage stuff work. That will give you an exact picture of the API
that's covered (I think). If that's worth your time, I don't know of
course. I don't really see much point in obsessing about test coverage
anyway, unless you are planning to write more tests (which would be very
welcome of course).


> Testing the library using an app built on top of GNet is of course a
> good idea. The only question is efficiency. Such a task would require
> me to port the app onto Solaris (unless it has been already done, like
> Pan on Blastwave) which may or may not be easy. Most apps listed on
> your web site seem to be almost dead, with the last source code
> changes dated a few years back. The only exceptions are Pan, Workrave
> and Mail Notification icon which seem to provide a very small test
> coverage. For these reasons I was wondering whether I should spend my
> limited resources on this and I was interested in your opinion.

I very much doubt it's worth the trouble/time.

 Cheers
  -Tim