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).

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to