From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mike Gran Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: On white-box tests Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:14:12 -0700 Message-ID: <1250684052.18373.858.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <87d46sci6o.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1250684098 18945 80.91.229.12 (19 Aug 2009 12:14:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:14:58 +0000 (UTC) To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , Guile Devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 19 14:14:51 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mdk42-0002VV-PV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:14:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49923 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mdk41-0007ow-Jw for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:14:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mdk3w-0007mi-9k for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mdk3u-0007m0-K9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:14:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44777 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mdk3u-0007lr-Cx for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:14:42 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp102.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([98.136.44.57]:25988) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mdk3t-0007Mm-SA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:14:42 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 48446 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2009 12:14:41 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Zd7c4ZkeHtFfZZTPNMWwMQzhXg6DTyxNB1kS3qz1VDWefqqEbOKugCXSl9s/+646mDKR2QXeBp5FQ/Grw4VPqsNjjFguQKvhFsl9eLw6S8k5D4UPcmT7YVw+87RLmjkFdi2yE2D7Ib8noxhdnv1Tmg0Lsl8z88nNentlgnUpp0I= ; Original-Received: from adsl-71-130-213-44.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net (spk121@71.130.213.44 with plain) by smtp102.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2009 05:14:40 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: FzNaA9iswBDuBl1BmgaIRDaP9Q-- X-YMail-OSG: rTV7nycVM1l0WCY7HULB0ylDvl7iIK6lJyKgv4gQY8V800aPeM_EUep3mVXOrFZwyvejtNauxrVvkS4aTB9YHcjrchJ60tYSl6mtUNYeTaO07Xzoyv7fdtn0azoeUR4AMPJ8YWqknmA5NY69SZoBuhQokqSL639vAr4HUM_FuFeyTL6MN1weIuMT8Q0WcPQ_TK2kS83AOGVlsLqUbz.hzKGVxBI6kV049hMprFP4R20GXZzj4Tu4Ogg32F_jZ7jJGMibNmONDfm9kbSSIx.pWSsdWw8cDMIpvx3f8kf7fschxeUMW1Nyo7sK0ZC6FIdj_SqhcN.KNnfvdNUiZBP1TmyWOQ6VZKZ.XZU5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 In-Reply-To: <87d46sci6o.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-2.fc10) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9155 Archived-At: On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 10:38 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! > > Just a note that I've been meaning to send for some time. > > "Michael Gran" writes: > > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=9b0c25f6d18d5be318ea3a47fd87cf7e63b689e1 > > [...] > > I'm not fully convinced by some of these "string internals" tests, > though. These are "white box tests". I believe these tests are mostly > useful when written by someone different than the one who implemented > the code under test, both of whom following a given specification. When > someone writes both the code and the white box tests, I'm afraid they > end up writing the same code twice, just differently. For example: I know what your saying. I was just a kid with a new toy. In my line of work, where 100% code coverage of test suites is a common requirement, we end up writing many such overly obvious tests. They are often the only way to hit some internal branches. They are often pointless. > What do you think? Keep it or dump it. It's all good. > > Thanks, > Ludo'. Thanks, Mike