develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: RFC: A Test For Every Patch

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Hugo
Date:
July 26, 2000 21:15
Subject:
Re: RFC: A Test For Every Patch
Message ID:
200007270321.EAA09158@crypt.compulink.co.uk
First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
I don't need to be on both lists.

In <20000726165118.F1854@athens.aocn.com>, Michael G Schwern writes:
:In One Sentence
:---------------
:
:All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch.

Can you explain more about how you'll test documentation? I can see
the value of a single test that checks all documentation is properly
formatted, but I don't see what a patch to fix some documentation -
whether it is a typo, or a better way of saying something, or
fixing something that's documented incorrectly - can usefully have
by way of an additional regression test.

Many patches also come into existence because some regression test
is already failing. This applies in particular to configuration
issues, but also elsewhere. Do these need new tests?

It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
While I can understand the desire to avoid distressing end users
with fully anticipated test failures, I think we need a better
solution to this - when a problem is identified, the _first_ thing
that should appear is the new test that identifies the problem by
failing. Just because we're not sure how to fix the problem yet,
or haven't had the tuits yet, is no reason not to add the failing
test.

Hugo

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About