From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG!howell From: howell@COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Testing hidden subpgms and state data Message-ID: <8805041354.AA02809@boardwalk.mitre.org> Date: 4 May 88 13:54:52 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: It's me again... Different question. How do you test (unit test, CSC, etc) subprograms that are not visible in a package spec, and the "state" that they may affect (e.g., variables declared in the package body)? The two approaches I've seen most often are a) Put test code in the sequence_of_statements part of the package body so that the tests run at package body elaboration time. b) Add one or more "hooks" into the package spec in order to allow test code to access the hidden subprograms. What other alternatives have you seen? What are the strengths & weakness of the various approaches? Any comments are appreciated, Chuck Howell The MITRE Corporation, Mail Stop Z645 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102 NET: howell@mitre.arpa or howell%community-chest.mitre.org@gateway.mitre.org