[gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]

Hello

Looking back on the repoman patches from both me and creffett, we
haven't written tests; it's on my plan to still do that, if possible.

This makes me wonder: Should writing tests be a requirement? When?

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 18/01/14 01:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Should writing tests be a requirement? When?
Thank you for raising the issue. We need a clear policy on this. (And
this policy should be obviously documented.) And in my opinion, tests
are worthless unless we do some variant of TDD[0].

We should write tests before we write implementations. This makes you
think more deeply about your design, and it forces you to actually
*write* the tests. I have seen time and time again projects where
tests are supposed to be written post-implementation. Usually, tests
are written for the first month (that's an optimistic estimate), and
then the implementation is so far ahead that tests are simply dropped
altogether.


[0]  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development>, for
those of you who are unfamiliar with TDD.

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlLZ3sAACgkQRtClrXBQc7WUUAEAni2RZNcbR8wyYKSJWAPXlgaR
/CB3JDkzK3ZcOTn5sKcBAJ3tZ3jV+LLBg/Ls1f651gd6jECAfBvWiYAMFa8aUvSa
=x2nL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 360 bytes --]

On Friday 17 January 2014 19:10:56 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Looking back on the repoman patches from both me and creffett, we
> haven't written tests; it's on my plan to still do that, if possible.
> 
> This makes me wonder: Should writing tests be a requirement? When?

i'm not sure if it should be a hard requirement, but it is strongly encouraged
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 550 bytes --]

On Saturday 18 January 2014 01:40:04 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 January 2014 19:10:56 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Looking back on the repoman patches from both me and creffett, we
> > haven't written tests; it's on my plan to still do that, if possible.
> > 
> > This makes me wonder: Should writing tests be a requirement? When?
> 
> i'm not sure if it should be a hard requirement, but it is strongly
> encouraged

i would even encourage reviewers to inquire about tests, especially when the 
change is not entirely obvious
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] When must we write tests, when is it optional?

[Sebastian Luther]

Am 18.01.2014 01:10, schrieb Tom Wijsman:

> 
> This makes me wonder: Should writing tests be a requirement? When?
> 

I'd say not a hard requirement. Some things are just to trivial and some
things are just impossible to test with out current test infrastructure.