Hi Bill,
That's not what I mean.
I agree fully with you that it is good to add tests that show in which
way the system is broken.
Adding tests for methods that don't even exist doesn't make much sense
to me right now. testHex is (was) testing something that doesn't
exist. OK if you are doing test-driven development. Not good if you
want a system to be coherent and understandable. At the very least
such tests need comments to explain why they have been added.
Tests that are fragile and meaningless is also bad. The testHash
tests that test that a hash returns a specific value are not good. I
prefer to get rid of them.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Bill Schwab wrote:
But if the test is revealing a true flaw in the system, better to keep
it than to remove it and pat ourselves on the back about "all tests
passing."
Bill
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/10/08 10:00 AM >>>
Well, I thought we would start to fix the existing broken tests before
adding new broken tests.
I would also be very happy to see some comments when someone adds a
new broken test, so I know what the plan is.
Now I added an implementation of Integer>>hex, for example, but I am
not so sure why we need this.
Ain't too many senders. An easier fix would have been to remove the
broken test.
Cheers,
- on
On Jun 10, 2008, at 15:53, Bill Schwab wrote:
Is your concern that the new tests are broken (which seems normal to
me
that they would start out that way), or are you objecting to their
being
included in the image?
I can see arguments either way on the latter. If code in the image
is
wrong and a clearly correct but currently failing test highlights it,
I'd rather be alerted to it. You are also correct that having them
included draws attention that could easily encourage duplication of
effort.
Comments?
Bill
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/10/08 8:31 AM >>>
I looked at the wiki page
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/CurrentlyWorkingOn
but it does not say much.
I would like to work through some tests, but I cannot find an
overview.
The tests CharacterTest>>testHex and IntegerTest>>testHex are broken
but seem to be very new. Stef, are you working on these? You seem
to
have written the tests ...
- on
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
