on Sun Jan 25 2009, skip-AT-pobox.com wrote: > Dave> I'm very grateful for everything that the SpamBayes project has > Dave> done for me, but finding these two things today does make me > Dave> wonder whether the procedure for checkins and/or testing could be > Dave> improved. > > At this point SpamBayes is a fairly large collection of separate > applications. Most people use just one, the Outlook plugin. Almost nobody > uses more than one. Writing test cases to properly test the POP3 proxy, > IMAP filter and the Notes filter (should that simply be deleted?) would > require a fair amount of scaffolding. At minimum you'd need stub > implementations of the various kinds of protocol servers.
You could always test them with real servers. It's imperfect but workable. > The core classifier should be fairly well-tested by the daily use it > gets. Except that the %x bug somehow got loose. > It was easier to assume that bugs got squashed quickly when there were > several active developers who could operate from the Subversion > repository. With basically just me as the lone person making any code > changes and running from Subversion there is much less likelihood of > flushing out dumb bugs. If I'd had commit access I'd have been able to nail those two. Probably wouldn't have stopped me from posting as well, though. :-) My SF userid is david_abrahams, should you decide to add me. I can think of one other person who might also be willing to help. > That said, I agree that SpamBayes needs some formal test framework. Well, you could start by just trying to load all the modules ;-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ spambayes-dev mailing list spambayes-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes-dev
