On 1/24/07, Tom Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't see how a test can be written to show something won't be > fixed.
"Wontfix" resolution is usually for requests for specific features be changed or enhanced. Real bugs should never be resolved wontfix because they are always fixed. I also don't how a test can prove an issue doesn't exist. Easy - take what the reported has described and turn it into a test. If it passes it is proof that it doesn't exist, and you've raised test coverage a tiny bit. If tickets are closed with 'works for me', the closer couldn't think > of a test that fails. It doesn't prove the issue doesn't exist, but > then, proving a negative isn't exactly easy. The onus should be on > those with an interest in reopening the ticket to provide a failing > test, rather than on those closing tickets to write passing tests. I agree with this. About defects that are reported with less than a minimal clue how to reproduce (and without a failing tests, obviously) - should they be resolved as "untested", or that resolution only applies to ready patches? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
