Re: More error leaks

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 01:00:43PM -0500, John Peacock wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
> >Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> >>
> >>By moving
> >>_all_ the callers to use svn_foo2(), don't we lose test coverage of the
> >>original svn_foo()?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> As long as svn_foo() is a wrapper around svn_foo2(), AND during
> development the testing passed with all callers using svn_foo(), is
> there anything reason to require continued testing? I'm thinking
> specifically about the keywords-as-hash patch which was done in multiple
> steps for exactly that reason...
>

If we also introduce svn_foo3() and rewrite svn_foo() to use that directly
(rather than keep svn_foo() forwarding to svn_foo2()), then we don't
get a chance to test svn_foo() again.

Or, more commonly, we can't validate that svn_foo() still works when we
change the implementation of svn_foo2().

Regards,
Malcolm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 26 19:22:17 2006