1 I care a lot about being able to automatically check _any_ property about my
2 program before it ever runs. However, some things don't have tests yet, either
3 because I don't know how to test them or because I've been lazy. I'll at least
7 - delete app settings, start with a filename; window opens running the text editor with cursor at top of file
8 - run with absolute file path; quit; restart; window opens running the text editor in same position+dimensions
9 - run with relative file path; quit; switch to new directory; restart without a filename; window opens running the text editor in same file in same position+dimensions
10 - run with a filename on commandline, scroll around, quit; restart without a filename; window opens running the text editor in same position+dimensions
11 - run with a filename on commandline, scroll around, quit; restart with same filename; window opens running the text editor in same position+dimensions
12 - run with a filename on commandline, scroll around, quit; restart with new filename; window opens new filename with cursor up top
13 - run editor, scroll around, move cursor to end of some line, quit; restart with new filename; window opens running the text editor in same position+dimensions
14 - quit while running the text editor, restart; window opens running the text editor in same position+dimensions
15 - quit while editing source (color; no selection), restart; window opens editing source in same position+dimensions
16 - start out running the text editor, move window, press ctrl+e twice; window is running text editor in same position+dimensions
17 - start out editing source, move window, press ctrl+e twice; window is editing source in same position+dimensions
18 - no log file; switching to source works
20 - run with an untested version. Error message pops up and waits for a key. The app attempts to continue, and doesn't receive the key.
21 - run with a LÖVE v12 release candidate. No errors; it is a supported version. All tests pass.
24 * run love with directory; text editor runs
25 * run love with zip file; text editor runs
27 * How the screen looks. Our tests use a level of indirection to check text and
28 graphics printed to screen, but not the precise pixels they translate to.
29 - where exactly the cursor is drawn to highlight a given character
30 - analogously, how a shape precisely looks as you draw it
32 * start out running the text editor, press ctrl+e to edit source, make a change to the source, press ctrl+e twice to return to the source editor; the change should be preserved.
33 * run with an untested version. Error message pops up. Press a key. Text editor comes up, and doesn't receive the key. Press ctrl+e. Error pops up. Press a key. Source editor opens up. Press ctrl+e. Error pops up. Press a key. Text editor returns.
34 * create a couple of spuriously failing tests. Run with an untested version. Error message includes message about untested version.
38 Lua is dynamically typed. Tests can't patch over lack of type-checking.
40 * All strings are UTF-8. Bytes within them are not characters. I try to label
41 byte offsets with the suffix `_offset`, and character positions as `_pos`.
42 For example, `string.sub` should never use a `_pos`, only an `_offset`.
44 * Some ADT/interface support would be helpful in keeping per-line state in
45 sync. Any change to line data should clear the derived line property
46 `screen_line_starting_pos`.
48 * Some inputs get processed in love.textinput and some in love.keypressed.
49 Several bugs have arisen due to destructive interference between the two for
50 some key chord. I wish I could guarantee that the two sets are disjoint. But
51 perhaps I'm not thinking about this right.
53 * Like any high-level language, it's easy to accidentally alias two non-scalar
54 variables. I wish there was a way to require copy when assigning.
56 * I wish I could require pixel coordinates to be integers. The editor
57 defensively converts input margins to integers.
59 * My test harness automatically runs `test_*` methods -- but only at the
60 top-level. I wish there was a way to raise warnings if someone defines such
61 a function inside a dict somewhere.