mop-features should be more prominent, and why not integrate it into closer-mop as a separately loadable ASDF system?

[Hexstream]

Hello,

There are quite a lot of "Checked against [...]" commits, but I can't find a test suite and now I am very confused...

So what does "Checked against [...]" actually mean? Isn't there a closer-mop test suite somewhere?

[Hexstream]

So I guess that's mop-features, but I guess that could be made clearer in the documentation,
and I wonder why it's not just part of closer-mop as a separately loadable ASDF system?

After all, this is how test suites are typically defined...

[pcostanza]

mop-features started out not as a test suite, but as a way to check to what extent MOP implementations were compatible or not. It only later turned out to be a useful test suite as well.

When I check a new CL implementation for compatibility, I not only run mop-features, and use the report-changes function to find out if something has changed. I also run the test suites of ContextL, AspectL, and filtered-functions, because they tend to be able to reveal issues that mop-features doesn't cover.

All of this grew organically, at a time when ASDF was a much simpler tool than it became by now. I haven't caught up with ASDF, because it also caused a lot of grief due to it tending to break arbitrary things when its version number changes. So I prefer to keep things a bit simpler.

I'm happy to accept pull requests if I am convinced it's an improvement.

[Hexstream]

Thank you, I absolutely understand.
ASDF certainly has a rich history...

I think there are a lot opportunities for improvement here,
but for now I'm focusing on much more personally urgent priorities.

Incidentally, as documented there as the first item, I will be attempting to write the best Common Lisp unit testing framework very soon. I am hoping it will help promote more enthusiastic and comprehensive unit testing practices across the entire Common Lisp ecosystem. :)