Testing more borts 2 #383
Testing more borts 2 #383
Conversation
| C> @param[out] KSUB -- integer: Ordinal number of current data subset | ||
| C> within (KMSG)th message, counting from the | ||
| C> beginning of the message | ||
| C> | ||
| C> @author J. Woollen @date 1994-01-06 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious, why are you moving the parameter descriptions in all of these routines to be after all of the remarks and discussion? The remarks and discussion notes refer to some of the parameters listed in the parameter descriptions, so it seems more sensible to keep those remarks and notes after the parameter descriptions like they were previously; otherwise, they're talking about concepts that haven't even been introduced yet!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's the way it is done in all the NCEPLIBS and I'm trying to maintain a similar look and feel everywhere. Description, parameters, return codes, author is how we do it everywhere else.
| # Check codflg(). | ||
| ./test_bort_4 codflg 1 | ||
| [ $? != 1 ] && exit 1 | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this run_test_bort.sh script be in the test_scripts subdirectory along with all of the other test scripts, rather than in the test directory with all of the source code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well that is open to discussion.
All the scripts in test_scripts are for utils, and I was planning on moving all of them to a test_utils directory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, the test_outtest.sh script (wrapper script for all of the outtest*F90 codes) is also in test_scripts, so it's not just scripts for testing utilities in that directory.
That said, if you wanted to have a separate test_utils directory for all of the utility scripts, and then a separate test_scripts directory containing just your new test_bort.sh script and the test_outtest.sh script, I wouldn't be opposed to that ;-)
Part of #381.
In this PR I add testing for borts of more functions.