Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Automated testing framework #34

Closed
leijurv opened this issue Aug 17, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Automated testing framework #34

leijurv opened this issue Aug 17, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@leijurv
Copy link
Member

leijurv commented Aug 17, 2018

This might tie in with #20

I'm thinking both small scale (almost like unit tests) and large scale.

Small scale would be like "in this scenario of blocks, this movement should be COST_INF". However, that would be really time-consuming to create for not much benefit. I think larger scale integration-style tests give way more bang for you buck (the amount of functionality it tests vs how time consuming it is to write).

Perhaps something like "can the bot path from 0,0 to 1000,1000 in a world generated from seed _____ within X minutes without taking damage?"

@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Aug 17, 2018

Bonus points if we can get travis or circle to run headless (or normal) minecraft to do this.

Extra extra bonus points if we can get a screen recording of if/when it fails.

@leijurv leijurv added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 17, 2018
@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Aug 19, 2018

Related to #52

@oldgalileo
Copy link
Contributor

Related to #1, which is stale.

@oldgalileo oldgalileo mentioned this issue Aug 21, 2018
@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Sep 27, 2018

This is merged

@leijurv leijurv closed this as completed Sep 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants