-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
> On 7/16/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Patrick Gerken wrote:
>>
>> > On 7/7/06, Julien Anguenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > I marked the bug as bug + bugfix but nobody
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I would say that there are two bugs in the case you are describing: the
>>> one you meant to fix and the one which is the lack of any tests for the
>>> module / class / whatever. I would bet that spending your thirty
>>> minutes adding minim
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I would say that there are two bugs in the case you are describing: the
one you meant to fix and the one which is the lack of any tests for the
module / class / whatever. I would bet that spending your thirty
minutes adding minimal tests to such a module is a *higher* v
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:58:24PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-7-6 18:29 +0200:
> > ... fixing a trivial error without a unit test ...
...
> If the test is as trivial as the fix, then one can easily add it
> (if one is not confident that the bug is true
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:48:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In many cases, I can convince myself that a fix does actually work without
> performing a test -- at least in the sense that it removes one bug.
In many cases I have made completely trivial bug fixes that I was
absolutely confide
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-7-6 21:35 +0200:
> ...
>If you follow the argument that untested code is broken by definition,
I do not follow it.
>then you essentially have no fix if you get a fix without knowing
>whether it actually works.
In many cases, I can convince myself that a fi
On Jul 7, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2006-7-5 11:46 +0200:
...
Another thing are the rules about unit tests. Some bugs touch
areas that
ar
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2006-7-5 11:46 +0200:
...
Another thing are the rules about unit tests. Some bugs touch areas
that
are poorly tested. When I fix a bug over there, do I hav
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:11 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Marius Gedminas wrote:
I do not think that the requirements to
4. Write unit tests
5. Merge bugfixes from trunk to the release branch
6. Wait for the incredibly slow upd
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 7/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I have introduced secondary bugs in my fixes (which occasionally
happened), then a unit test would not have helped. The reason was
then
that the affected code was used in unantici
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2006-7-5 11:46 +0200:
...
Another thing are the rules about unit tests. Some bugs touch
areas that
are poorly tested. When I fix a bug over there, do I have to work
harder
to
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I disagree. How would you make sure that your fix for even a "trivial"
NameError actually works? Perhaps you introduced another typo in the
bugfix? Or perhaps another problem pops up in the same codepath.
Clearly, since the NameError didn't occur in any other test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> I do not think that the requirements to
>> 4. Write unit tests
>> 5. Merge bugfixes from trunk to the release branch
>> 6. Wait for the incredibly slow updates on the collector
>>
>> discoura
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-7-6 18:29 +0200:
>> ... fixing a trivial error without a unit test ...
>
>> How would you make sure that your fix for even a "trivial"
>> NameError actually works? Perhaps you introduced another typo in the
>> bugfix?
>
> Obviousl
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2006-7-6 20:03 +0200:
>On 7/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When I have introduced secondary bugs in my fixes (which occasionally
>> happened), then a unit test would not have helped. The reason was then
>> that the affected code was used in unanticipa
On 7/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I have introduced secondary bugs in my fixes (which occasionally
happened), then a unit test would not have helped. The reason was then
that the affected code was used in unanticipated ways -- and
because it was unanticipated, I would n
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-7-6 18:29 +0200:
> ... fixing a trivial error without a unit test ...
>How would you make sure that your fix for even a "trivial"
>NameError actually works? Perhaps you introduced another typo in the
>bugfix?
Obviously, I have considerable more confidence i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote at 2006-7-5 11:46 +0200:
>> ...
>> Another thing are the rules about unit tests. Some bugs touch areas that
>> are poorly tested. When I fix a bug over there, do I have to work harder
>> to introduce the fix because I have to start introducing tes
18 matches
Mail list logo
