On 01/28/2011 02:51 PM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> 2) Test coverage overall is pretty darn poor. Which is partially why
> loggerhead isn't particularly stable to hack on. (The things you are
> testing right now pass, but things you didn't think about start breaking.)
Yeah, that's what I thought, and improving that coverage before we say
that trunk is stable was my goal (and was what I've been talking about
in this thread).
> It would certainly be good to at least have smoketests for regressions.
> I'm not 100% sure what a good test framework is for something like
> Loggerhead. I don't think we want to test too much at the WSGI level
> (integration vs unit tests, etc.). But we could certainly use a few
> integration-level tests.
Yeah, agreed. I remember liking whatever comes with Pylons, but I don't
know if it works outside of Pylons.
-Max
--
http://www.bugzillasource.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla, Perl, and IT Services
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
