Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
>> So our test suite lacks this test?
>>
>>> Anyhow, in r26813 I added an intialization and also tweaked
>>> drive_merge_report_editor() to check for a possible NULL
>>> children_with_mergeinfo (not really necessary right now, but you check
>>> it elsewhere in that function, so in the name of safety and
>>> consistency...
>>>
>> Just wondering why you didn't add that test in r26813? If you don't have
>> time, why not add an XFail-ing place holder explaining in comments the
>> above scenario, then we can still add it later.
> Lieven,
> Yes I *love* tests that shows detects all the problems in my code well
> in advance(This is what exactly I feel when I change something in
> merge-tracking code). But writing a testcase for short lived bugs of
> this nature would be an overkill.
Kamesh,
I understand you're not taking two hours to write a full regression test
to point out a small issue that can be fixed in 2 minutes, that wasn't
what I asked for btw.
If you're doing TDD and you'd find such an issue, ideally you'd write a
small unit test (in C), fix the issue and commit both. This would make
sure that you pointed out the exact issue and fixed it correctly, with
only a small overhead in time in the short run.
In my reply I was in fact pointing to the scenario that Paul described,
which looks like a way a user can trigger a path in our code that isn't
covered by any regression test for now. In my ideal of having at least
100% code coverage this scenario seems like a worthy addition for the
test suite. No? I just want to make sure we don't forget it. Anyway,
don't worry about it, I'll add a place holder or maybe a full test to
the test suite this weekend.
BTW, thanks for doing a great job to get the merge tracking code
finished on time for 1.5.
Lieven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 28 10:11:36 2007