+1 Alan, well said. Regards,
Rajith On 12/11/06, Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 07:58 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote: > Steve Vinoski wrote: > > When I raise the testing issue in this list, as I've already done on > > numerous occasions, I usually get next to nothing in terms of feedback. > > Do others share my concerns about this whole testing issue? Do we as a > > group agree on the value of overhauling and enhancing our tests? > > Yes, I agree that more (and better organised) tests would be a very good > thing. I would go further and strongly suggest that no-one should *ever* commit new functionality or fixes without tests. The exceptions would be a fix for that makes an existing test failure pass, and pure refactoring work that isn't supposed to change the behavior of the system. (And even then you usually find that the existing tests need a bit more coverage as you go.) It's not an onerous requirement: you *always* test your code before you commit it don't you? Nobody *ever* just says "hey it compiles, and it's trivial and obviously works" - right? So all I'm saying is, don't keep those tests to yourself, they're worth a lot more if you share them. Testing with your own private tests that never see the mainline is almost worthless. Private tests don't protect against regression, don't provide measurable coverage, never get run in an environment other than your own, don't provide a test base that can be extended as the code evolves, and don't help other people understand what your code is supposed to do. Measure all these benefits against the tiny amount of effort required to put the tests you would do anyway into a form that fits the projects automated frameworks. There's no question it pays off manifold. Of course it's always a matter of judgment and debate as to exactly how much testing is the right amount. But there no question that it is simply irresponsible to commit code without any tests. Cheers, Alan.
