"Glenn A. Thompson" <gthompson@cdr.net> writes:
> Karls take is that every thing is game to be tested. Right Karl?
>
> If a test case becomes brittle and breaks as a result of code changes
> we have three choices:
> 1. fix it.
> 2. split it out to be FS type specific. Perhaps two tests will emerge.
> 3. delete the test.
>
> Am I hearing you Karl?
My only point is that whatever a doc string promises, we can test for.
If we change the promise, then of course we might have to change (or
delete) a test. That's all. All interfaces are documented, it
doesn't matter whether they're public, semi-public, or static
internal.
If the code changes in a way that the test can detect, and yet the
relevant doc string did not change, then that's a bug -- either the
code change is wrong, or the doc string needs to be updated. (Or
maybe the test is buggy and doesn't test what it claims to test, of
course.)
> The problem is that I haven't dug through the test code enough to make
> any specific point:-) Bad move gat ... whaap
>
> So in the words of Emily Latella ...... never mind.
:-)
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 29 05:09:50 2002