Testsuite restructuring

[Per Östlund]

Right now there's no real structure to the testsuite, so it should be restructured to make it clearer what is tested. My proposal is the following:

• flattening
  • libraries
    • MSL31
    • MSL221
    • 3rdParty
    • ...
  • language feature tests
    • arrays
    • enums
    • connectors
    • ...

• simulation Pretty much the same as flattening

• metamodelica
  • language feature tests (meta)
  • bootstrapping

• omc features
  • linearization
  • fmi
  • interactive API
  • interactive simulation
  • ...

I think most of our tests can be sorted under one of these four categories, but perhaps I've missed some. Mostly I would like to see mofiles and mosfiles structured better by dividing them into folders based on what language features they are testing, and some of the toplevel folders like expandable and streams should be moved into those folders too. I would also like to see the multibody tests moved into the MSL31 folder, so that it's clear what they are actually testing.

We should also try to standardize tests a bit more. I'm mostly thinking about the library tests we currently have, where there's no standard for what they are named or how many models each test includes. Ideally we should have one testcase for each library model, but that would probably be prohibitively slow due to having to load the library for each test.

While we're at it we should probably go through the failing tests and see if they are still failing, and also check that all tests are accounted for in the makefiles.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on how to restructure the testsuite. Discuss!

[Martin Sjölund]

Where do 3rd-party libraries go? (Shared between flattening and simulation)

[Per Östlund]

Replying to sjoelund.se:

Where do 3rd-party libraries go? (Shared between flattening and simulation)

I guess we should put them somewhere so that they can be shared. So we could e.g. add a libraries folder under the testsuite and put them there.

[Martin Sjölund]

Postponed until 1.9.1

[Martin Sjölund]

Is this done? Or are we still unhappy?

[Adrian Pop]

I think some models are in the wrong place but is good enough for now.
Also some directory naming seems to be a bit off.

[Martin Sjölund]

I'll just close it as "fixed". There is no "goodenoughfornow" :)