[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: `make check` mechanics

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2001-06-18 23:02:04 CEST

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 [...]
> 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!

Oh, I'm aware of this risk. That's why we took so long getting a
"framework" for our python tests set up. Writing black-box tests
isn't simply a matter of writing an add-hoc routine that returns 1 or
0; no sir, you actually have to code to a "testing API".

But don't fret -- we've been using this API for a while. We have lots
of tests using it, and it's pretty reliable now.

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

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.