> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 01:40 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> >> > yay! this has been causing me some nightmares just thinking about >> it. >> > I'll get onto a purge this weekend unless there is anyone else who >> wants >> > to do it or veto it. >> > Speak up within 8 hours or I'll create a 'nocpp' branch and get to >> work. >> >> Should be trivial. It already supports out-of-tree cppunit if you have >> cppunit installed, and the cppunit requirements is only if your run >> "make test". > > Which everyone should do before committing, of course! > > This reminds me - Amos - your IPAddress patch, is the code thoroughly > unit tested? Thats as much a concern for me as is merging unused code. > I'd really hate to add more chunks of untested functionality > *particularly* when they are unused, as its easier for unused code to be > spectacularly broken and unnoticed than for used to code to be the same. >
It has not been linked to the cppunit testers, but I have written a specific test app to check each function and proivide for maula-eye check in increments from simplest up for both ipv4-pure then dual protocol paths. Then it has spent nearly a month in live run tests within squid and manual debug traces. That said, if anyone can think of any asserts that should be in there, point them out. Amos
