sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
- To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:23:54 -0400
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik (ruskie AT codemages.net) wrote [09.10.01 01:30]:
> :2009-09-30T20:36:David Kowis:
> > If you couldn't tell, I'm big on automating this testing process.
> > Anything we can automate, even if it takes a bit more work initially,
> > saves us time in the long run. And it makes it verifyable and
> > repeatable. If we really want to improve the quality, we need to do
> > this. Then we can easily catch regressions in versions due to dependency
> > changes and other such evil things.
>
> I'm all for automating. But how would you test everything? Like how do
> you test if a browser functions as it should? And do so in an automated
> manner.
>
This is starting to sound too much like we would be writing the unit
tests not for Source Mage, but for the programs themselves. That is not
our job, nor should it be. That is the job of upstream. If upstream
wrote unit tests, then our job would be to run them and use the results
to determine if the spell was built properly. If we start doing unit
tests for the programs themselves, when will we have time work on Source
Mage?
I'm all for having proper unit tests myself, but let's not get too
carried away with where we apply our efforts. A unit test that ensures a
config query actually results in applying the user's choice is something
we can do. A unit test that guarantees there are no memory leaks or
segfaulting operations in a final product is not something that should
be our goal as a distro.
All of the preceding is of course IMHO. :)
--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgpeq4HYW0PsT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Donald Johnson, 10/01/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, David Kowis, 10/01/2009
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
David Kowis, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Ladislav Hagara, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, flux, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, Jaka Kranjc, 10/04/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Ladislav Hagara, 10/04/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
David Kowis, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.