eunit in common test

[Joel Reymont]

What is the benefit of using eunit in common test suites?

I see this done but don't see the point.

        Thanks, Joel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, kernel extensions and usb drivers
---------------------+------------+---------------------------------------
http://wagerlabs.com | @wagerlabs | http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelreymont
---------------------+------------+---------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

[Banibrata Dutta]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Joel Reymont <[hidden email]> wrote:

What is the benefit of using eunit in common test suites?

I see this done but don't see the point.

Ref: http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/common_test/cover_chapter.html#cover
<quote>
Although Common Test was created primarly for the purpose of black box testing, nothing prevents it from working perfectly as a white box testing tool as well. This is especially true when the application to test is written in Erlang. Then the test ports are easily realized by means of Erlang function calls.
</quote>

Possibly leverage a common reporting framework ? Possibly make it easy to separate the nightly-build and automated (whitebox) test setup. I'd believe this is one of the several alternatives that developers have.

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions