On 02/27/2014 08:12 AM, Armen Zambrano G. wrote:
Thanks Jim for the reminder!
On 14-02-26 07:00 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
If you don't have tests, but the patch should have tests, set
in-testsuite to "?" and file a followup to track landing the tests. When
they land, set in-testsuite to "+" for both bugs.
I thought that we're not allowed to land code that can have tests
without tests. Is it not like this?
I'll leave that up to reviewers to make the call (but err on the side of
requiring tests, please!). However, there are times where something
*should* have tests, but *can't*. An example of a time you could set
in-testsuite to "?" and land a bug would be if we just don't have the
infrastructure to test your patch (maybe you're fixing something that
requires special hardware to test, like a Bluetooth headset).
"in-testsuite-" should only be used for things that we don't expect
could ever be automatically tested. The most obvious example would be
purely-visual changes.
Remember, a reviewer can always r- a patch for not having tests, or even
not having thorough enough tests.
Filling a follow up bug to add the tests could easily become the bug
that we never get to or we get to after regressions creep in.
The benefit is that we're actually tracking it this time around.
However, if you're not writing tests, you'd better have a good reason.
- Jim
_______________________________________________
dev-b2g mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
