On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | Unit-testing is certainly a good thing -- tests all those promises the
> > | code makes and keeps Arndt happy about programming by contract since the
> > | interface can't change without everybody finding out.
> >
> > Unit-testing and independant modules is easy...unfortunately most of
> > the modules in LyX depends on a multitude of other mudules makeing
> > unit-testing very cumbersome and a lot of additional work.
>
> Agreed. Unit testing a class in a vacuum can be highly cumbersome.
> That's why you unit test the fundamental ones first, by themselves.
> Unit tests of more complex classes simply use the fundamental ones and
> assume that they are correct.
>
> Also, you can't unit test *every* class. Where one can test, however,
> one should.
In a way we've already started some limited unit-testing: lyxstring.
The new implementation includes a set of tests that admittedly aren't
complete but are reasonably comprehensive. I haven't managed to checkout
the new strand yet but I already have some doubts about the recent removal
of one of those tests.
The Bullet class also includses an almost-useless test that I need to
update.
Allan. (ARRae)
