Pre-release testing

[Tom Hughes]

In message <1A3EoEAlmC+4EwPC at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
          Tony van der Hoff <OSLib at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> However, some sort of automation, per Stewart's proposal looks like a
> step in the right direction, although according to Tom, it would not
> have been any better in catching the macro error than the simple test.c.

Actually I think I'd misread the details of Stewart's proposal
and it might well have caught it.

> Is it worth doing? If so, how to do it? My guess is, that DefMod could
> be persuaded to generate test files whilst it is generating the C
> headers, containing a declaration of each type. These would then be
> compiled when the library build is complete. I guess I'll have to grab
> the bull by the horns, and delve into DefMod; something I've avoided so
> far. Unless someone else wants to volunteer?

I may be able to do something...

> I guess that's how Tom found the remaining post-release errors. It is a
> shame they didn't get picked up at the beta stage, but that's life. My
> TestFW (which is what I was concentrating on) worked fine, but then it
> does not #include the faulty headers (and, therefore, arguably, is an
> unsatisfactory test).

That is indeed how I caught them. Unfortunately I hadn't managed
to find time to try the build before you released it. I shall try
and do so next time.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/
...I need all the help I can get!