Hi Marco On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Marco Hugentobler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > Being in favor of unit tests, we cannot hope to solve with them all the > stability problems, as some mails here suggest. It is just one small piece. In > fact, thinking about bugfixes in the past, e.g. for the 1.7 release, most of > them occured as a complex combination of several factors and user interaction, > very hard to detect with unit tests.
I believe that many stability problems are caused due to various unhandled corner cases in the core library. Bugs in GUI are usually less fatal. > Another point that needs to be considered is that the unit testing code needs > to be maintained. Adding a test for every little change, even bugfix, would > create a huge amount of testing code and sample datasets. > > What about alternatively creating a unit test base that is limited in size but > well maintained, e.g. a good coverage of the core classes? I don't think we need to aim for 100% coverage by unit tests. For me the most important elements for unit testing are classes which facilitate data access (map layers, features, geometries, providers etc) - to make sure that we do not get regressions there. Martin _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
