On 23 Apr 2009, at 16:06, Eric Shulman wrote: > Paul wrote: >> I do feel we may be being overly cautious, and if there is scope >> leakage then it will help refactoring and plugin authors if we >> understand the problem better and have regression tests to follow. > > Unfortunately, BT/Osmosoft's track record on testing is *abysmal*
Um, I'd like to separate "BT/Osmosoft" from "core developers". Whilst the people may overlap as in set theory, they are very distinct things - for example I'm Osmosoft but am not a core contributor. It is also true that coverage of the current core is pretty abysmal. We don't have many tests, and code has been added to the core without tests, but that doesn't prevent writing tests from being the answer. I'd also note it is hard to write tests for a large code base which runs in many environments retrospectively and whilst we have periodically had splurges of writing tests, we do need to carry on with such initiatives and welcome contributions from others following the pattern laid out in the core test area - yet another area where jQuery and qunit is helping us move forward. If you really feel current TiddlyWiki core testing is abysmal, or following the wrong approach, then I'd encourage you and others to show us by examples for plugins and in contributions to the core how to write better tests. Best, Paul (psd) -- http://blog.whatfettle.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" 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/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
