Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2006-7-5 11:46 +0200:
Another thing are the rules about unit tests. Some bugs touch areas
are poorly tested. When I fix a bug over there, do I have to work
to introduce the fix because I have to start introducing tests?
We should find and announce a reasonable answer for the procedure in
Although I have (so far) never fixed a bug in Zope 3 (but posted
several patches for Zope 2), I can confirm this:
There are bugs that do not need a test once they are fixed.
All kinds of "NameError" and "AttributeError" fall into this
Requiring to write a unit test for these or similarly trivial
bugs is silly -- especially if there is not yet a testing file
for the module (such that a trivial test would suffice).
I disagree. How would you make sure that your fix for even a "trivial"
NameError actually works? Perhaps you introduced another typo in the
bugfix? Or perhaps another problem pops up in the same codepath.
Clearly, since the NameError didn't occur in any other tests, the
codepath hasn't been tested yet, so it should be no matter what.
There's another aspect to tests for bugs: reproduceability. Especially
when fixing bugs I tend to write tests first in order to be absolutely
sure that I can reproduce the problem in an automated manner. Then
fixing the bug is "easy": Just make the test pass...
Well said. I agree 100%
Just to make sure nobody got me wrong: I'm not arguing that tests are a
bad thing. They belong to the best thing that came up in the last years. :)
I was merely pointing to a small edge-case in bugfixing, that might be
even smaller then anticipated, where I got frustrated in the last time.
+1 for the tests-are-good-recap :)
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Zope3-dev mailing list