Am 19.04.2010, 12:50 Uhr, schrieb Adam GROSZER <agros...@gmail.com>:
Before I start: + lots on the general idea. Zope's narrative documentation
is attrocious" and we have lost users and developers as a result.
> I'm somewhat vary on unittests. I've seen some damn cryptic ones that
> took a lot of time to decipher.
All the more reason not to think of them as part of the documentation.
Would it possible to come up with some metrics for the quality of tests?
> A doctest somehow forces you to dump your mind (well at least that, if
> we're not that brilliant techdoc writers).
Narrative documentation forces you to explain yourself to someone else.
Neither, however, will necessarily notice if you forget something: tests
aren't documentation and docu
> OTOH I think most unittests maybe have some comments, worst case they
> don't even use "speaking" variable names.
The key to any of this is making it easy for developers to want to go this
way. Writing good, legible tests *will* encourage others to emulate them.
> I'm not sure whether we can enforce such rules (super thorough, no
> shortcuts-taken, well commented) if we can't easier ones.
What does Lint have to say about them?
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -