On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? They don't have to be new tests. You might add an assert that says, in effect, that the tnode was written to the .leo file. Not quite sure how to do that :-) > 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 ;-) Sure, unit tests that say that uA's on top-level @<file> nodes work would be good. But uA's are not what worry me. I'm much more concerned that writing <t> elements in the .leo file will screw up the read logic in some way. Perhaps this is a nameless fear. The only way to know for sure is to make sure that all kinds of @<file> nodes continue to work. We *should* have existing unit tests that prove this. I don't know for a fact that we do. Edward -- 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.
