On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 17:31 +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:50:34 +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:38:01 +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan
> > <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:25:35 +0530, Jelmer Vernooij <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Looks good! Two small comments from a quick glance over your patch:
> >>> Why the assert_ -> failUnless change?
> >> IIUC, assert_ will cause and assertion and hence an error. failUnless
> >> will cause a failure (test failure)
> > No, I was wrong, assert_() and failUnless() effectively do the same. But
> > I still feel that the name `failUnless' makes more sense in a unit-test
> > scenario. What do you think?
> >>> I'm not sure whether adding tests that fail are a good idea - it makes
> >>> it harder to catch real regressions. Can you comment out the failing
> >>> ones and a TODO or send a fix along that fixes the actual bug?
> >> Good idea. Will do that, and send the patch again. Thanks. :)
> > Jelmer: I have this patch ready... will resend this patch, after getting
> > done, what you have to say about assert_() vs failUnless(). Hope this is
> > okay.
Sorry, I've been busy with other things. I'll try to have a look at your
patch over this weekend.
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer_at_samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Received on Fri Jun 23 12:25:27 2006