Re: [lmi] wx_test_input_sequences.cpp

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:17:49 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> // ERASE THIS BLOCK COMMENT WHEN IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETE. The block
GC> // comment below changes the original specification, and does not
GC> // yet describe the present code. Desired changes:
GC> //  - Hard code the sequences; get rid of 'InputSequences.cns'.

 All the sequences in InputSequences.cns file I have are also present in
sequence_input.html. However there is one sequence which is present in the
latter but not in the former: "annual; monthly". I assume that we should
test this sequence as well (and not just those currently present in
InputSequences.cns), but please let me know if it's not necessary as it
would slightly simplify things.

GC> /// Validate a variety of input sequences in the GUI input dialog.
GC> ///
GC> /// Test a broad variety of input sequences. For now, use the set in
GC> /// the user manual:
GC> ///   file:///C:/lmi/src/web/lmi/sequence_input.html
GC> /// but hard code them here--later they might differ, e.g. if we
GC> /// decide to add extra tests here.
GC> ///
GC> /// First, create a temporary '.ill' document:
GC> ///   File | New | Illustration
GC> /// Then paste each input sequence into the appropriate field

 After some trial and error, it seems that the "appropriate field" for all
the sequences currently in InputSequences.cns is "Face|Specified amount"
one, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm less sure what to use for
"annual; monthly" one: should it be entered into "Payments|Individual mode"
or somewhere else?

GC> and test
GC> /// it thus:
GC> ///  - Click the ellipsis button; press OK to close its dialog.
GC> ///  - Click OK to run the illustration. This step is tested because
GC> ///    it triggers downstream validation.
GC> /// Reopen the tabbed dialog for each subsequent test.

 I assume the last one should done with "Illustration|Edit Cell" (Ctrl-E),
is this right?


GC> The reason for this sweeping change is to make the test more powerful.
GC> Pasting strings directly into the GUI exercises some validation code
GC> that was not previously tested. This new design makes it easier to add
GC> more tests later. We considered the idea of reading the examples from
GC> the user manual dynamically, but after due consideration we have
GC> decided that they should be hardcoded in the source code instead.

 I was going to say that taking them from the manual would be better as it
would ensure that the manual examples are always up to date, but
considering the counter-arguments from your other email, I won't say this.

 Thanks for the explanation of the rationale of these changes, I definitely
agree that it's nice to test the input sequences editor too.
VZ