On 2009-01-19 01:23, "Christiaan Hofman" <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I don't see this. But you're probably right about the name prefs. > I already expected that plain testing of equality of bibtex that gets > produced isn't a sensible test, because there isn't such a strong > requirement on the bibtex output. This is precisely why I'm saying I'm not so certain. Isn't it good to be consistent in how the bibtex is saved? But I will happily break that test down to check the individual fields rather than the whole record at once if you think that's more sensible. > that unless you design unit tests very carefully (which is a hard > job), it's as much (if not more) testing the test rather than the code. Agreed. But I will happily fix any stupid tests that I write and I'm sure they will catch some bugs. The existing tests have already been very useful for me. Best, Greg. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
