On 04/17/2010 10:56 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Lennart Regebro wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 19:17, Tres Seaver<tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: >>> I'm ambivalent about testing the Sphinx code snippets on each test run. >>> I want those snippets to be *much* less comprehensive than they are >>> currently, and am pretty sure that drift in the non-executable bits is >>> at least as important a problem as drift in the snippets. >> >> Well, unless they take of time, but they shouldn't, really. I think >> it's positive to get a quick feedback if you are breaking the >> documentation. > > Again, I don't mind that part, but I want to break the cycle of jamming > crap (for documentation purposes) into the docs for purposes of getting > test coverage.
I think Lennart was arguing for a safety belt: if we're not supposed to break those tests *at all* within bug fixes then I want to know right away if I did so accidentally. I guess your coverage argument was that if the unit tests do the coverage anyway then we won't miss anything, but we won't be 100% anyway and as the tests in the docs do exist and should run quickly, the safety belt would be cheap. I'm +0.5 after some pondering. -- Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
