On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:24 PM, AJ Lewis wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 04:57:13AM +1100, john skaller wrote: >> >> On 04/02/2012, at 4:37 AM, AJ Lewis wrote: >>> >>> Definitely - just concerned that this model continues. Some of the >>> talk about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other >>> contributers to revert them makes me nervous. > > <snip> > >> So I would stop feeling nervous about vetting of patches .. and start >> feeling nervous about the lack of test code :) > > Heh - that is true. The key here is that test code will catch when > changes break what was previously working - whether that's a bug or a > change in interface. If we has such tests, changes to the tests > themselves should get greater scrutiny, especially if they're > accompanied by library code changes, since there's more likely to be > interface changes (or bugs being worked around!) in that case. > > I'm a big fan of the concept of Test Driven Design - having "contracts" > that are enforced by the test subsystem goes a long way to keeping > things sane. At least then you *know* that you're breaking an interface > rather than finding out after the fact!
The problem is trying to retrofit an existing codebase with tests. It is very difficult. I'd love to see a good C/C++ coder tackle it; I tried but it was beyond my capabilities. cr _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
