NoQ requested changes to this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.

In D81718#2095965 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81718#2095965>, 
@baloghadamsoftware wrote:

> Your test case unfortunately does not test what you want, because raw 
> pointers are not supported yet


It tests exactly what i want: the correctness of your code in //this very 
patch// that was written to handle //this very case// for which you never even 
bothered figuring out the correct solution but you already wrote //a large 
amount of code// (including some code in this patch) //with zero test 
coverage// to demonstrate correctness of your solution.

As of now you wrote your new two functions to return some value in every case. 
However, only some of these cases are covered with tests; in other cases the 
value was basically chosen randomly. The way you added unittests in order to 
make sure this completely random value stays random rather than correct doesn't 
count as testing.

In D81718#2096020 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81718#2096020>, 
@baloghadamsoftware wrote:

> What is the correct solution then? To put branches all over the code of the 
> checkers? Surely not.


That's literally how test-driven development works. First you write tests, then 
you write any code that covers them, and //only then// you figure out how to 
reuse code. This is because correctness is completely orthogonal to prettiness; 
arguing that my solution is incorrect "because it's ugly" is ridiculous. This 
is why test-driven development recommends starting with a correct-but-ugly 
solution, not with an incorrect-but-pretty solution: first you figure out how 
to solve the problem at all, then refactor.

I will not discuss this further unless all the dead code that you're 
refactoring is either covered with LIT tests or removed.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D81718/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D81718



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to