My idea is that through testing the old API, I will expose bugs that may be present at a deeper level (thus, having an impact on various APIs and the UI). If I can expose old API bugs that are restricted to this API, this is an unintended - but welcome - side effect.
The one change I made to the old API was to fix a bug that I already knew about. I realized that tests would have exposed it much earlier and thus decided to write more tests. D. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm jumping for joy about the tests. :-) More failing tests and Jira > items means more bugs that we *know* about. But the same number of > bugs overall. So the more bugs we find and write tests for, the > happier I am! :-) > > So, one question I had here based on your latest commit, was if we are > fixing old bugs in the old API. My impression was that your bug fix > was to fix a new bug, and the un-noticed appearance of this bug > motivated you to start writing tests? > > Ethan > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I wouldn't be jumping for joy yet. >> >> I love negative tests / finding bugs = lots of Jira items :-> >> >> D. >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yay! Excellent! >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I've created a new Jira item >>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old >>>> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards >>>> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is >>>> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution, >>>> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API >>>> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API >>>> wouldn't be broken by code changes. >>>> >>>> D. >>>> >>> >> >
