Yes we should definitely have test cases for new components as well. I try to add ones when I'm fixing bugs in the older components as well.
Sean On 7/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was thinking about the requirements last days, when worked with Shale-Test and JMock. I noticed that there are only some tests for components in Tomahawk. Wouldn't it be great to have a test-case as a requirement for promoting a component ? And of course, Mike is right in *testing* with RI and example. -Matthias On 7/14/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Mike on both points. > > On 7/14/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/14/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > moving s:form has nothing to do with RI compatibility - we remain as > > > compatible as before. > > > > > > So let me reopen the vote, s:form is well documented (example wouldn't > > > help much), and it should be ok to move it to tomahawk. > > > > Has s:form been tested with the RI yet? (It's one of our promotion > > requirements.) > > > > Also, I think an example should still be provided even if it's trivial > > right now. > > Future expansion on the s:form tag may not be trivial. > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
