Morgan Smith <[email protected]> writes: > Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > >> I think the way the code works is searching the keyword name via >> 'member', so the first instance "wins". But this is basically undefined >> behavior. Do you really want to test for undefined behaviors? > > Well this is where we differ in our expectations of the test-suite. > > I like to have a reproducible, hands-off method for determining what the > current state of the software is. This allows me to make large, sweeping > changes and then use the test-suite to see the fallout. I see the test-suite > as something to aid in development. > > I believe you see the test-suite as a promise of how the software should > function. You want users to be able to look through the test-suite to see the > recommended ways of using the software.
Not exactly. I just observe that test suite was the only source of truth available when checking for expected behavior in the past. I do not want to break that useful function of the test suite. I also understand your arguments. What about explicitly marking the test cases that are testing underfined behavior and may be broken if necessary in the future? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
