Shash: > I personally haven't supplied tests to speak of, so my New Year's resolution > for Keel is going to be to remedy that. I was thinking that we should make it > a *requirement* to have included unit tests for every new module that is > checked into CVS. I realize that it will be a barrier for new and exciting > things to be contributed into Keel, but I think it will be worth it. For UI > front-ends, we should also require minimal functional tests.
+1 here too. We've always got the scratchpad area for truly experimental stuff, anything that makes it into a module should have tests. We may want to look at TestMaker as an alternative to Anteater for functional tests. Haven't confirmed this, but at first glance it looks a bit easier to write the tests, which is critical if they're actually going to get done. I find even HttpUnit I write more tests than Anteater, but maybe that's just me. > I know everybody generally supports the idea of unit-tests, but I am asking > specifically the community about making unit-tests a pre-condition for > checkins. An alternative might be to allow checkins, but not including a > module in a release/download unless there are a significant number of tests. > > In the same vein, what about minimal javadoc requirements? Isn't there a task in Ant that can verify the existence of basic Javadoc? +1 on it being a minimal requirement - and I'll start writing some for modules I've contributed that don't have any :-) Michael Nash JGlobal Ltd Next-Generation Web Application Development and Open Source Support http://www.jglobal.com Bahamas Commerce and Trade Offshore eCommerce Hosting and Business Services http://www.bahamascommerce.com http://keelframework.org/documentation Keelgroup mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.keelframework.com/listinfo.cgi/keelgroup-keelframework.com
