Closed bobzhang closed 12 years ago
You're right; we have a dependency on OUnit when we shouldn't. I guess now is the time to spin off qtest into its own project so that its compilation/installation (which requires OUnit) doesn't become part of our standard build.
I guess now is the time to spin off qtest into its own project
Before or after 2.0 ?
I'm thinking before 2.0.
E.
For now, I have extracted qtest and its history (thanks to filter-branch) into a new repository: iTeML, for "inline unit tests for OCaml". I am taking this opportunity to get rid of the not-very-descriptive "qtest" legacy name.
I'll maintain legacy qtest2, but major new features and backwards-incompatible changes will (eventually) go into shiny new iTeML = qtest3, which will use the annotation model suggested by Gabriel, as opposed to the current extraction model (I'm not so sure it's worth having a hybrid model anymore).
I have yet to migrate the qtest stuff from the Makefile, then I'll expunge everything from the batteries repo. I can't give any timeline, I am swamped IRL.
edit: and 5 mins later: bam! a new commit on batteries' qtest... I have to figure out how to coax git into synchronising the two repos...
It's done... shouldn't have broken anything...
It seems that oUnit is still required?
@bobzhang
It seems that oUnit is still required?
Does it still seem that way now that #331 is solved?
yes, sorry for the noise
Would you provide an optional flag to remove the dependency on oUnit. I have attached a simple patch for your reference