[Bioperl-l] Splitting Bioperl and Test related Suggestions
bix at sendu.me.uk
Thu Jul 5 04:55:25 EDT 2007
Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
> I agree, although would the dev releases still need to pass all the
> tests? I'm thinking of people installing via CPAN.
Yes, they'd all have to pass. 'Developer release' should never have the
connotation of 'broken release'. However, getting all tests to pass is a
lot easier than fixing all bugs in bugzilla.
(... which actually goes to show how poor our tests are)
Worst case, if we were forced to stick to a schedule but couldn't fix a
failing test, we could always make it a 'todo' test.
> I also agree with what was said in a previous post about bringing back
> bioperl-run (and some others) back into the same repository as
> bioperl-core (after a successful move over to svn)
Agree (with myself essentially).
> I also agree with previous posts about organising and/or having some
> naming convention for test data files. I think an approach whereby data
> files were organised into directory trees (1 - 3 deep) with names that
> elude to the type of data in that subtree/file rather than the tests
> that use it etc. For example:
> |__ formats
> | |__ seq
> | | |__ legal_fasta
> | | | |__ extension.fas
At that level, files don't need extensions and can have fully
informative names that explain what's interesting or special about them.
> This type of setup, might lend itself to having a test script simply try
> to parse all the files in a directory to ensure nothing fails (for legal
> file formats) and fails for illegal formats.
> Thinking about this a little more, I think it would be a good idea to
> include Test::Exception in t/lib.
Agree. I'll see if I can have it auto-loaded by BioperlTest.pm.
> Anyway, this type of reorganisation couldn't take place until the svn
> repo is up and working.
More information about the Bioperl-l