Moritz Lenz wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
Will Coleda wrote:
We should be following rakudo's example of not closing tickets for
which tests could be written.
I'd rather see a new ticket created for adding the tests,
And who creates that ticket?
The same person who would have reviewed the ticket and decided not to
close it because it needed tests added.
So you know where I'm coming from, we still have 2-5 year old tickets
open in RT that are practically un-closable, because they have no clear
task to complete (far fewer than before, though, thanks to the efforts
of several people). Keeping the purpose of each ticket clear and simple
helps avoid that.
Somehow this sounds to me like more work than necessary; but then again
I mostly write tests for Perl 6 stuff, which is often easy: the bug
reports mostly contain a piece of code that misbehaves, turning that
into a test is no rocket science.
That is pretty straightforward. We get some of those, a bug report with
a minimal PIR example to show the problem.
So I see two possibilities: either the parrot bugs are much harder to
test for - than the idea of giving them to newbies is moot. Or they are
simple to test with some code snippet already provided - then it's easy
to turn that into a formal test, no need to encapsulate it into a
separate ticket.
Is there enough middle ground between those two possibilities to warrant
the extra work flow effort?
I'd give the developer a choice "either commit the test with the fix, or
create a separate ticket for the test". They can decide which is more work.
Allison
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
