On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:18, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> > So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring
> > all tests
> > to be doctests.
> If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be
> somewhat looser than mandating a particular test/doc framework
> (something along the lines of "must have good test coverage and
> appropriate narrative documentation", maybe with examples of what
> this means that could be in doctest format by default). Would that
> be acceptable?
If there is enough outcry by developers, then yes. ;-)
The problem is that it becomes hard to verify that documentation does not
deteriorate over time. That means we need certification manager overhead to
check that; and it would actually be a difficult task. With doctests I can at
least force the developer to update the documentation examples, and if s/he
is interested in his package at all, s/he will update the text around it as
BTW, I have no problem to make the requirements tool independent. I could do
the following changes:
Doctest-based Testing --> Documentation-based Testing
Actually I just did.
Maybe I should also change::
Minimal Documentation --> Minimal, Testable Documentation
Complete Documentation --> Complete, Testable Documentation
Mmmh, now that I look at the matrix, I really think I should have a small
explanatory snippet for each metric (below the matrix).
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-users mailing list