What you are describing is what testing literature refers to as criteria
for equivalence classes.  There is some level of judgment to that, yes.

Yep yep, to be sure. I'm just generally trying to encourage the community 
behavior towards being both selective & thorough about testing.

I have noticed you doing this (not just in this review) and I am very 
appreciative of the principles; when it comes to understanding what a test is 
trying to do, keeping the unnecessary fluff out is very helpful.  You have no 
idea how many times I've had to suss out the intent of a (usually comment-free) 
test after it broke when we merged it into our tree.  Fortunately that sort of 
thing has been happening less often, now that more of our changes have been 
integrated upstream, but still, it's great to have tests that are very focused….

….when they are tests for a bugfix or other comparatively small change.  I have 
to say when it comes to a new-feature kind of patch, I would rather have the 
test err on the side of completeness.  This is partly based on the experience 
of introducing the 'optnone' attribute to Clang, which IIRC popped up with new 
and surprising cases two or three times after its introduction.  More thorough 
tests up front could easily have prevented those surprises.  Now here I am 
again, not with a new attribute but seriously expanding the applicability of an 
attribute, and would like to apply previous experience and start out with what 
I think should be a moderately complete test.

If you're unwilling to accept that argument and insist on minimal upstream 
tests, okay; I can take what I've done and migrate it into our private tests, 
and leave behind only the minimal upstream test.  It will leave me with the 
test I think the feature needs, leaves upstream with the minimal test you 
prefer, and if something breaks it will just take a little longer to get that 
feedback.
Let me know.
Thanks,
--paulr

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to