On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Julian Edwards wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009 22:55:02 William Grant wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:04 +0100, Julian Edwards wrote:
Why not put all those tests in this new file? I found it
confusing to
see them in two places.
Ideally I'd like to split up xx-archive.txt more anyway, it's way
too
big! We could at least have xx-archive-permissions.txt,
xx-archive-copying.txt and xx- archive-subscriptions.txt !
It's because it's so big that it got bigger. I followed the example
of
the existing types of tests that you mention there, and added the new
ones underneath. It should be split up, you're right.
I had an interesting call with Celso yesterday about this. I was
advocating
smaller, more focused page test files. He said that because we have
custom
"get" methods on IArchive to retrieve related objects, we should
test those in
xx-archive.txt.
However, if we split out the related objects into separate browser
tests, then
it's very likely we'll end up with repeated calls to the same get
method which
is not nice for our test suite run time, not to mention introducing
redundancy.
So, how about we mention the custom method in the commentary of xx-
archive.txt, and then refer the reader to a different file where
it's fully
tested?
I like the pattern, myself.
(I wonder if there's any ReST markup for this?)
No, there's not.
There's Sphinx (ReST extension, used for Python docs, advocated for us
by me and others, http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ ) markup for it. http://sphinx.pocoo.org/markup/inline.html#cross-referencing-documents
Gary
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
