Sam Tregar wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Dave Paris wrote: > > > A patch test should do a minimum of two things: > > (a) prove the existance of the problem *before* the patch. > > If the patch solves a problem (versus adding a feature), this is true. just to be consistent, a test to prove the lack of the feature would be nice. > > (b) prove the problem has been fixed *after* the patch - without > > breaking anything else. > > This should be proved by the existing body of regression tests > successfully passing. You don't rewrite a general test of your module > each time you add a test to test.pl, do you? the condition of possibly breaking a core module does extend this a bit. I see and agree with your take on simply adding a test to test.pl. (and alluded to this with "may be able to be pared down by calling other existing tests") > Also, you need; > > (c) proves that the patch deals elegently with "out-of-bounds" input, > when such is possible. a good addition. --a-mused
