On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robin...@sony.com> wrote:
> 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. > I'm not intending to argue against completeness, to be sure. > 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. > For the broader discussion about test strategy, I'd love to hear more about these cases (perhaps on another thread) to make sure I/we/community take the right lessons from them to improve the process and provide review feedback that pushes us in a good direction. > 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. > I think that'd be best, if you've got the option to do so/find it necessary. Thanks! - Dave > Let me know. > > Thanks, > > --paulr > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
