On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/13 Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Robert Kern wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Besides, having a "test-per-checkin" is not the proper mapping in > my > > >> mind. I'd rather see whole check-ins devoted to testing large > pieces > > >> of code rather than spend all unit-test foo on a rigid policy of > > >> "regression" testing each check-in. > > >> > > > > > > Stéfan is proposing "test-per-bugfix", not "test-per-checkin". That > is > > > eminently feasible. You need to do some kind of testing to be sure > > > that you actually fixed the problem. It is simply *not* *that* *hard* > > > to write that in unit test form. > > > > > That is not true. You *don't* need to do testing to be sure you > > actually fixed the problem in some cases.... Looking at the code is > > enough. Like the case we are talking about. > > That is where we disagree: looking at the code is simply not enough. > It is fine if you know where to look, and if you look exactly there > every day -- but who does that? That is precisely why we have tests > -- to automate this inspection. > Stefan, sometimes the fix really is clear and a test is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Sometimes it isn't even clear *how* to test. I committed one fix and omitted a test because I couldn't think of anything really reasonable. I think concentrating on unit tests is more productive in the long run because we will find *new* bugs, and if done right they will also cover spots where old bugs were found. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
