IMHO, there are two different things to consider: - a non-regression tests suite which is only about regressions. It contains tests that once proved to be a BUG which are fixed and we don't want to see back again. It contains also complete and silly tests that are not expected to fail (1.0 == 1 is such a silly test. Sometime very idiot tests fail because of a very innocent change). My OpenLisp very BIG regression tests contains tests like that which proves I'm unfortunately right. A non-regression tests suite is not expected to fail. It only fails on change that is a **regression** on what used to work.
- a missing features test that shows something is missing or buggy you add a test case for it in bug-test Suppose you think of new test like: int a; double d; a = d = 3.14; If it works, it goes to non-regression test, if it fails it goes to bug test and when fixed goes to the first one. This way, non-regression test always works and you know what you must work on with second test suite. M2c. -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Michael Matz Sent: jeudi 13 octobre 2016 14:49 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] cleanups Hi, On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, grischka wrote: > In general, often when I see people adding tests I think: "Well you > just fixed that, what's the point? I'd rather see what's still broken." The point of course is to not break things ever again, after somebody got to the length of fixing something. Ciao, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
