From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: call for more ert tests Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:20:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <838v1zjrnl.fsf@gnu.org> <8361x3jqsy.fsf@gnu.org> <8338s7jp53.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419fd6a1f46004dfeb4e81 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372101647 14956 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2013 19:20:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Sebastian Wiesner , Emacs-Devel devel To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 24 21:20:48 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UrCJk-0004N2-43 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:20:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41624 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrCJj-000415-IH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:20:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36807) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrCJd-0003xk-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:20:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrCJb-0007wJ-R5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:20:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:42742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrCJZ-0007tf-A5; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:20:37 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ey16so83986wid.5 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:20:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=bnQOD/YV0VuMc9kJzsfn1Mf6qlaG4KOP6nJJ7GoR7Lo=; b=Vk/UkywNvBS8crCLWGKM+nGBGe3/8J14m9BbpdspuBFt0YKH9k7lCVlPxeNtH/MgRv fFsJVgiBhPAF1tFxrYiFte/NwdhKD7ijCXXzS+yxSaGFATl3Pt+G/ct7yqzaK2cfVaiO b5SrSrx3A4nDkaqXvkcnankKXHcd4Ee8HWbylf9IgZ8czjw5/FcqVx8Z715JUZegRVFi EP0CtUr7Lh+UZOqF27HcVvEMV3vjBMwEmecMuJloSNp/dG1Xr+q0fZuz3PxtyJbsnqJS EpC8EZ9rG+FsATzW3E+fP+yUauU+YpH1Fu9Il2C0oMSHN6jj9QQCAzZiN8oAqF+bO/GV nvSg== X-Received: by 10.194.237.38 with SMTP id uz6mr17660635wjc.73.1372101636384; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.194.13.199 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:20:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8338s7jp53.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:160976 Archived-At: --089e01419fd6a1f46004dfeb4e81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:55:28 +0200 > > From: Sebastian Wiesner > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > 2013/6/24 Eli Zaretskii : > > >> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:33:41 +0200 > > >> From: Sebastian Wiesner > > >> Cc: Glenn Morris , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> > > >> > IMO, unless we require every new feature to come with a test and a > > >> > report that no regressions were found by running the existing tests, > > >> > we will never get any better testability than what we have now. > > >> > > >> Then this is probably a good policy, isn't it? > > > > > > Which policy? > > > > Well, requiring tests for new features or fixed bugs, and confirmation > > that there are no regressions from the existing tests. > > I believe it's good, obviously. The problem is with introducing it > without losing too many contributors. > > Perhaps people will be more willing to write tests when fixing bugs because then you will nearly immediately see the benefit of it. (Both for writing the bug fix and assuring that other people do not break it again.) --089e01419fd6a1f46004dfeb4e81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:55:28 +0200
> From: Sebastian Wiesner <lunaryorn@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> 2013/6/24 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>:
> >> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:33:41 +0200
> >> From: Sebastian Wiesner <lunaryorn@gmail.com&g= t;
> >> Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.= org
> >>
> >> > IMO, unless we require every new feature to come with a = test and a
> >> > report that no regressions were found by running the exi= sting tests,
> >> > we will never get any better testability than what we ha= ve now.
> >>
> >> Then this is probably a good policy, isn't it?
> >
> > Which policy?
>
> Well, requiring tests for new features or fixed bugs, and confirmation=
> that there are no regressions from the existing tests.

I believe it's good, obviously. =C2=A0The problem is with introducing i= t
without losing too many contributors.

Perhaps people will be more willing to write tests when = fixing bugs because then you will nearly immediately see the benefit of it.= (Both for writing the bug fix and assuring that other people do not break = it again.)
--089e01419fd6a1f46004dfeb4e81--