2008/5/14 Matthew Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > > 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. > > I must say that I have certainly (correctly) fixed a bug, and then > broken the code somewhere else resulting in the same effect as the > original bug, and missed it because I didn't put in a test the first > time. I do agree (with everyone else I think) that it's a very good > habit to get into to submit a test with every fix, no matter how > obvious. > > Best, >
I agree as well, what may be obvious to someone is not for someone else, and there are many examples where I thought the code did this but in fact did that (and I saw it regularly in my courses with some students). Matthieu -- French PhD student Website : http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/ Blogs : http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92 LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
