Mark van der Loo

I don't think its easy to fulfill that request as it is part of how tinytest works (it uses locally, and dynamically masked functions to capture test output). A workaround...

note to self: I could make `ls()` not return the objects that `tinytest` creates.

That's actually a really interesting idea. I will try that out. Thanks!

Yes, I understand the point. It would be easy to statically generate those test files under `/tests`, but doing this dynamically depends on how `R CMD check` determines what files...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. AFAICT if you test w/o a framework, than you have no option other than use `stopifnot()` (or `stop()`) in your test files. And there's no way...

I think that you can already do much of this with little effort because it is possible to program over tests. For example, you can already do this in `tinytest`:...

Yes, it would be a good idea to document 'parameterized tests' in the vignette. Perhaps in the 'tinytest by example' vignette. (I also should move those to `simplermarkdown`)

Hi there, thanks for the extensive explanation! In the example there is a test declaration in the form of a function call spanning 61 lines. As someone not used to...

hmm, I don't think I ever used that workflow as I tend to only test functions that are exposed to the user, but I see your point. I can't think...

I feel like this could be done. I have to see how easy it is. Also, as `tinytest` can run in parallel (with the file as unit for parallel running)...