On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:37:44 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My bad. This is the old (thoroughly hopeless) approach. Time simply > doesn't matter in such situations. The only valid approach is to > create unit tests that demonstrate conclusively that the new way > works. I liked the old way :-) I guess I'm not sure how you'd write *new* unit tests to show that everything that worked before still works. Isn't that what the existing unit tests do? It almost seems as if you'd need to change the setup on all the @<file> related unit tests to include uAs and some place holder body text in <t/> nodes, and then, if writing <t/> nodes for everything plus including that dummy content breaks no existing unit tests, conclude either (a) there's no negative impact, or (b) current unit test coverage is incomplete ;-) I guess you could also add a unit test to check that the uAs are actually written/read. I'll put this in the hopper after I've written a failing then fixed unit test for the driver relative "absolute" path thing, seeing then I should understand Leo's unit tests better. Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
