Kevin Pilch-Bisson <kevin@pilch-bisson.net> writes:
> The only thing I have against this plan to internalize everything is
> that it makes testing harder. We can no longer test small peices of
> functionality as easily. For example, we can't have a small
> repository already in existence and check something out of it.
> Instead we have to 1) create a repository, 2) add something to it, 3)
> check it back out somewhere else.
This hasn't been a burden, historically. And in fact, since the
repository format changes from time to time, it's not like you can
just keep a repos around and [reliably] test with it anyway --
creating a repository with the latest version of Subversion is a
necessity.
> The reason I point this out is that if such a test fails, it can be
> harder to track down exactly where the bug is. Also having more test
> code per test means there is a larger chance of bugs in the test
> code. There's nothing I hate more than spending weeks chasing down
> the reason a test is failing to discover that it is a faulty test!
True in general, yeah, but in this case, I doubt very much it will be
a bug source.
> All that aside, I am fine with removing the args from the tests.
Cool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:32 2006