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
> 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
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -