Testing and CI

[rye]

I think we should really look into improving some of the ways we interact with users. We should try to deal with edge cases in a smarter way, and generally clean up our code. How do we feel about using CI and tests? Testing our existing code might evoke good change in our codebase.

Task List:

• Add Travis integration #61 Add testing framework and integration with Travis CI, using buttercup
• Add Coverage reporting to coveralls.io #75 Add coverage support and reporting to Coveralls using undercover
• Write tests for existing code
• Add linting support, fix linting issues, and check linting in Travis CI

[cg505]

I'm doing research rn on the best approach for testing. We also should get linting set up and put both of those into CI. Suggestions on CI are welcome. I'll update this at some point soon with a roadmap for testing/linting.

[cg505]

I'm thinking we should use buttercup for tests.

[cg505]

Linting will be a combo of CEDET's checkdoc and elisp-lint.

[cg505]

I'm gonna start work on this using these. lmk asap if you have an issue with that. planning on using travis

[cg505]

I edited the initial comment to include a task list.

[rye]

I'm not sure about using Coveralls out of necessity. Do you know if CodeClimate supports EmacsLisp?

[cg505]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I already have basic Coveralls support in the coverage-reporting branch. The overhead is pretty minimal. I'm not super satisfied with it at this point, which is why I haven't opened a PR, but at the same time, it's kinda a "why not" thing.

[cg505]

Are we good with using undercover? Due to the way coverage libraries for emacs lisp are implemented, it will only show coverage for files that are at least a little tested... so the percentages may be off at first. Still should be a useful tool and I already pretty much have it implemented.

[rye]

I'm open to whatever you have, so long as it works.