Closed Gianfrancoalongi closed 11 years ago
Only remaining object is the one for coverage configuration. Not sure whether I want to replace this yet, I have to think about it. But, I do know that this seems to be the preferred way for passing configuration value (using Arrays).
Will now replace the CoverConf by a more generic Test Conf array which contains tuples with names and values. Instead of
CoveConf.Conf ← ⎕NEW UTcover Conf.pages ← '/home/APL/coverage' Conf.cover ← ⊂ '#.Example.timetable_selector' Conf UT.run 'out_of_bound_TEST'
this would now be passed as
C ← ⍬ C ,←('cover_out' '/home/APL/coverage') C,← ('cover_targets' ⊂ '#.Example.timetable_selector') C UT.run 'out_of_bound_TEST'
adding more configuration arguments would now be done by namespacing using key names.
C,← ('skip' ⊂'#.Demo.count_zero_comments_from_no_input_TEST')
It will now be important naming what available configuration parameters exists.
Registering this like a generic test configuration in the Requirement Specification. This will impact all existing Unit Tests in my system, which uses Coverage!
Using classes is not really very "functional" as was envisioned. Having succumbed to them for the use of the structure, it would be nice picking up the idea of using something simple instead and not making any modifications through references.