On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:58:43PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > Instead, every new feature added/changed and bug fixed (ie. every code
> > patch) must have an associated patch to the testing suite. No test, no
> > acceptance. Period.
>
> Even a patch that exists to fix an existing regression test
> failure?
There will always be exceptions. That's one of them.
> > *All* patches? Even documentation patches? Pretty much. There will
> > be exceptions, but even documentation can be tested. (See the
> > following "Embedded Tests" RFCs).
>
> The "Embedded Tests" RFC seems to have nothing to do with
> testing documentation. It has a lot to do with embedding tests
> in documentation, but that's not the same thing. Short of using
> a natural language parser I'm not sure documentation can be
> automatically tested.
Hmmm, wasn't clear enough. Embedding tests in documentation allows us
to actually test what the documenation says is true. And it makes it
very convienient to write the tests (rather than sticking them in
seperate files.) However, it does still mean we have to write the
tests and keep them up to date with the docs. Embedding just makes
life easier. For example.
=item split
...
If EXPR is omitted, splits the C<$_> string.
=for test
$_ = 'foo,bar,foo';
@a = split ',';
(@a == 3) and (join('', @a) eq 'foobarfoo');
=pod
We state that Perl does something in the docs and we put a test right
after it (or near it).
This isn't any sort of WONDERTEST!!!! but I'm trying to start small
and solve the problems I know we can solve with the least amount of
effort.
--
Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse
Plus I remember being impressed with Ada because you could write an
infinite loop without a faked up condition. The idea being that in Ada
the typical infinite loop would be normally be terminated by detonation.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
