On Fri, Jan 02, 2004, Jewett, Jim J wrote: > For the moment, lets assume it was a sometimes problem, and his > fix just simplified the code, which seems to have helped.
I don't think programming by coincidence is a good idea. > I'm not quite certain how to test for any of the three. That doesn't mean you can't test for the bugs, does it? I don't say we should test *everything* in the code base (that's impossible); I do think we should test things that we are most worried about going wrong (i.e. make the test risk driven) and if we are about to fix a bug then I would definitely say something went wrong. If we have a test case for every bug then we will only find the bug once. No one has said that it is easy to write test cases, but it's better to have a few incomplete tests than no tests at all... > I think a "Can we follow links embedded in tables" > test would make more sense than anything specific > to Chris' first bug. If there had been such a test then the bug would have been found already during the screen redraw development, wouldn't it? That is, there would be no reason to write a specific test case for the bug, since it had been found (and fixed) before the new code was added to cvs. /Mike _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
