Dep: Use 'golden' files pattern instead of hardcoding test output
A bunch of our tests contain hardcoded output that we match against. This is OK for simple cases, but we've got fairly complex outputs to test, so it'd be much better to separate them out.
Let's follow the basic pattern of "golden files" used in stdlib - keep the output in a pre-named file that's committed, and have a flag we can use to update that file's output when needed.
sdboyer
All 3 comments
Ok - I'll take this one on, being a newbie in the area (but having a pretty hardcore verification background in other languages & technical fields). My plan, to mimic stdlib, would be to create testdata (if needed) and cmd/dep/testdata directories (definitely needed) and move all hard-wired files in current tests to those directories. In the process, I'll learn the integration test scheme you all have set up, and can then start adding more e2e tests based on the learnings and the spec. Is this okay? Steer me as needed.
tro3
on 1 Feb 2017
sounds exactly like what i had in mind! awesome!
sdboyer
on 1 Feb 2017
215 is merged; closing.
sdboyer
on 13 Feb 2017
Related issues
deejross
路
3Comments
alecthomas
路
3Comments
rogpeppe
路
4Comments
tapir
路
3Comments
djui
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Ok - I'll take this one on, being a newbie in the area (but having a pretty hardcore verification background in other languages & technical fields). My plan, to mimic stdlib, would be to create
testdata(if needed) andcmd/dep/testdatadirectories (definitely needed) and move all hard-wired files in current tests to those directories. In the process, I'll learn the integration test scheme you all have set up, and can then start adding more e2e tests based on the learnings and the spec. Is this okay? Steer me as needed.