Incorrect Docs for CT all/0 and groups/0 callback functions.

[robertoaloi]

The docs for ct_suite seem to contain inconsistent information.
For example, the ct_test_def() definition does not include the ct_testcase_ref() option which, instead, is available.
The ct_testcase_ref() option is explicitly mentioned in the guide on how to write a test suite.
Same goes for ct_group_ref().

[robertoaloi]

Additionally, the example at:

https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/common_test/write_test_chapter.html#test-case-groups

should be wrapped in a list.

groups() -> {tests1, [], [{tests2, [], [t2a,t2b]},
                           {tests3, [], [t31,t3b]}]}.

[u3s]

Thanks. You might be right, I remember being confused when reading that part as well.

We will have a look, but it might take some time because of priorities.

[u3s]

• can you clarify what you meant with ct_test_ref? I haven't found such type in repo ... maybe you've meant ct_testcase_ref ?
• what exactly do you refer in guide on how to write a test suite ? which part from https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/common_test/write_test_chapter.html#test-suites ?

[robertoaloi]

Hi @u3s and thanks for looking at this.

That is correct, I meant ct_testcase_ref(). Updating the issue description for clarity.

[robertoaloi]

Also updated the link to:

https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/common_test/write_test_chapter.html#test-case-groups

Where you can see a reference to {testcase,TestCase,TCRepeatProps} (a ct_testcase_ref()).

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

There's some history related to ct_suite here. For example, ct_group_ref is not exported (as a type), nor is ct_testcase_ref, which is probably why we chose to not have them in the doc.s, as per this comment. Not saying that we shouldn't look for a solution to address @robertoaloi's worries; just giving extra context/info. so an informed decision is made. 👍

[u3s]

I've attached a PR to address this issue.

I tried to follow previous agreements (and basically not use any of *_ref types in docs explicitly).

Same goes for ct_group_ref().

What do you mean by that?
I think that it is implicitly included in docs for Module:all/0 and is inline with concept selected in the past. Am I missing something?

@paulo-ferraz-oliveira - thanks for historical reference, it helped.