World: r3wp

Graham: no, you don't release then test. That's insanity.

The concept of "just upload it" does not work.  Here's why:


1. Parts of the API may not work at all, because of course, they 
are not tested!


2. Parts may work incorrectly... and therefore are just going to 
confuse most developers, and they'll get frustrated.


3. Because the code is not tested, it floods CureCode with tickets, 
most of which should not even be posted there.


4. Without a testing methodology, there will be no consistent test 
suite over time... just a bunch of hacked together code pieces from 
various developers.

btw, I have volunteered with robert, but have not gotten reply yet.


I have client work which deals with extensions and have started some 
extension building automation... 

since this testing goes hand in hand with actual work I'm doing so 
I guess Its logical for me to step up and take the task.

Sold! PS: Robert has another project today.

also posted a private msg to you on R3 re this

Maxim, let me find a direct private channel to you.

ok.

Check R3 Chat. I'll be sending you a few notes.

Check your email.

ok

know what they say....  "carefull what you wish for... you just might 
get it"   :-)

I asked for it  ;-)

@Carl ... I don't think the three or so people testing extensions 
are going to flood anything.

And surely the testing argument applies to R3 ... so where is the 
test suite?

Wasn't testing suite publicly available? http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0125.html

I don't recall seeing it ... but in April 2008 I wasn't playing with 
R3

The method seems sound, but I think there could be a problem with 
the quantity of tests generated. Currently, with only five (of 56) 
datatypes tested, there are more than 22'000 test vectors, and they 
build exponentially. We may end up with more than a million test 
vectors for the final suite.

Yup. But that's OK if it's all automated.

yes, let it run for two days... do we really care?

it might even provide other insight on running such a heavy script

Or give Carl the impetus to build a grid/ipc/distribution infrastructure.

Graham, SQLite uses over 2 Billion tests before doing a release.

for i 1 1000'000'000 1 [  insert db {select * from test where id 
= (?)} i ]

The point is that 22'000 test vectors isn't much, and can be generated 
for the most part. We don't have to write them by hand.

Guys .. I didn't write that .. it's a quote from Carls blog

OK, cool. So the point goes to Carl :)

Yep :-)

And, it's all about test-coverage, not about high number of tests 
triggering always the same code.

write %qt2.dll read http://www.compkarori.com/r3extend/qt2.dll
secure [ extension allow]
test


and this brings up a Qt window with a push button .. says "hello 
world"

Better than nothing :)

Looks like Nokia sponsored the development of PySide, the Python 
bindings for Qt4 .. some 300 odd functions etc.  Wonder if they might 
sponsor a R3 binding!

There is a Python port to at least two of Nokia's cellphone operating 
systems.

** R3 EXTENSIONS MILESTONE **

I have successfully mechanically generated  a complete r3 extension 
and test script, by simply parsing a C language .h file.
  

if you have a makefile ready for your extension, it will even compile 
the extension for you and launch the test script in a single pass 
of the engine.

this is based on the latest r3 A101 build.

congrats maxim, THIS is a real milestone.

Cool Max!

open the door to prebuilt (logic condensensed) C libs will enhance 
rebol straight to the commercial 
software development.

capacity of the parser will be the main focus for on-going development.


I already have the complete C language parse rules from an older 
project, so I'll be slowing importing the rules into this engine.

Some good SWIG-like tools will helpe people a lot.

using comments in the C source, you can give instructions to the 
engine on alternate bindings and rebol test code you wish to compile.


the advantage is that these comments are side-by-side with the original 
C source file, so its easy to maintain.

I guess there will be a lot of more work and testing ;-)

what current limitations you have and in what timeframe you could 
solve them?

the current code is a single ~16kb file,  so its not too large right 
now.


obviously as more types are added, this will grow, but since I'm 
using a "rebol-formatted intermediate source tree", its easy to improve.


the parser just generates a version of the C source in this "RFIST" 
format, and the generator only has to convert this into something 
else.


in time, we might even build different emitters for the "RFIST" data.

limitiations, well, just the scope of supported datatypes, both in 
C and in REBOL commands.

others than that its working very well.

one fun thing is that we do not have to use the C source types as 
the interfaces for the commands.

my next test is to build a generic object to parameter map.

so, if you have a C func declared as:
int myFunc (int a, int b)

you'll be able to call it from rebol using:

obj: context [a: 1 b: 2]
myFunc obj

yes please! :))

its funny how the extension API feels like writting assembly  :-D

@Carl .. you called my suggestion insane, and now you post this blog 
http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0327.htmlsaying that you will do it 
anyway!

he's being pressured by everyone   :-)

he feels the love   ;-D