On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:08:54AM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: >> So, "[there] should be a quality control [...] of PmWiki extensions" >> is another one of those places that I fear handwaves away the difficult >> part of the whole problem. :-) > > I'd like to rephrase that as: 'So, "[there] should be a quality control > [...] of PmWiki and its extensions"'. > >> Indeed, if it was easy, we'd probably already be doing it. :-) > > True, but I believe there are some things we can do, especially in terms > of testing. I don't think we'd ever be able to do complete tests, but I > also don't believe this means we should skip trying to do some simple > tests.
I'm a very big fan of automated testing. That said, in the very early days of working on PmWiki 2.0 (yes, 2.0), I was developing PmWiki with a testing system in place. It didn't work out very well in the long run. Perhaps this is because of the tools I had available for doing the testing, but after maintaining it the testing subsystem for many months I found it to be a much bigger drain on my time/resources than benefit I was receiving for it, so I abandoned it. I'd welcome a way for us to have automated tests for PmWiki, and I think we can support it on pmwiki.org. However, I warn that it's not as trivial as it sounds at first, and someone other than me will need to implement a prototype or proof-of-concept. I also agree with Petko that I'd prefer that pmwiki.org not become the central testing system for all recipes. I'll comment more on this in a reply to his message. Pm _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
