Xiaojian, are you describing a situation where we change implementation because we already have a failing test that somehow got merged in?
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote: > How about the code change is already covered by existing tests? > > Not to reduce test coverage seems a more reasonable standard. > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On 12/29/17 12:05, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > >> I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all > PRs. > >> This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions. > >> > >> A test would both confirm the existence of the bug in the first place > and > >> then confirm the fix. Without such a test, any developer could come > along > >> later, modify the code in question and break it without ever realizing > it. > >> A test would protect the behavior that was fixed or introduced. > >> > >> Also if we are not consistent in requiring tests for all contributions, > >> then contributors will learn to pick and choose which reviewers to > listen > >> to and which ones to ignore. > >> > >> I for one do not want to waste my time reviewing and requesting changes > >> only to be ignored and have said PR be committed without the (justified) > >> changes I've requested. > >> > >> > > >
