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

Re: Test case for what turned out to be a non-issue

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-03-31 02:07:05 CEST

On Mar 30, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Daniel Rall wrote:

> While testing out issue #1591, I decided to get to know the Python
> testing framework a little bit. Our introduction went smoothly, and we
> ended up having a brief chat about #1591. I've attached the results of
> that to the issue:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1591
> Now, it turned out that #1591 is no longer reproducible with a 1.2-dev
> build. Assuming the test case I wrote is even reasonable, should I
> bother to clean it up and check it in? What's the usual process in a
> case like this?

I'd love to know if the bug reproduces in 1.0... maybe you can checkout
the 1.0 tag and try?

I think it's a good idea to commit the test case either way. But
looking at your test, I'd like to see the calls to 'svn up' be more
robust, using run_and_verify_update() instead of the super-generic
run_svn(). People are starting to get lazy, and are starting to use
run_svn() for *everything*, even though there are specific functions
for specific commands (update, status, commit, merge) that provide much
better verification/coverage.

(One other nitpick: I wouldn't search for such a specific expected
error message; it makes the test overly brittle. Just search for a
few-word phrase.)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 31 02:09:20 2005

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.