On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:08:29AM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > I'm undecided about this patch series ☹ - feedback needed. > > It's goal is to take advantage of the fact that htools can use “offline” > data files and thus doesn't need access to a live cluster. That it does > well. > > The downside is that, not having a nice shell-level testing framework, > this is all done in a hackish way, and if the tests fail you can't do > anything except use "bash -x" and hope for the best. > > The other thing I'm not 100% is whether the tests we do are correct/fair > enough to warrant inclusion in the coverage data; with this patch > series, coverage for the htools codebase reaches ~60%, and it seems too > easy to reach this just via 20 command invocations.
Please do not review this patch series. I will send an updated version that has much more tests. iustin
