Am 03.12.14 um 07:26 schrieb Shawn Heisey: > On 12/2/2014 10:47 PM, Michael Wechner wrote: >> I think you are right that in certain cases, like for example in the >> case of CompressingStoredFieldsFormat >> it makes a lot of sense to run the entire test suit (even multiple times >> considering randomization), but I would argue that there are probably >> quite a few other cases where incremental testing would be sufficient, >> at least as a first shot. > I do like to run the entire test suite at least once before I commit a > change. Usually I don't work on pieces of the system that are quite > this central ... At my current skill level, I am more comfortable at the > edges, where the code that I write is not expected to hold up huge > sections of the entire project. > > Knowing what tests to run during development of a particular bugfix or > change (when you definitely don't want to wait for the whole test suite) > is something that comes with a lot of experience.
right and I think exactly this experience should be documented and I think it can be documented in a very simple manner, which will help a lot and the cost for maintaining this information is way less what you will gain. > I will often resort > to asking dumb questions in Jira or on this list. Writing a new test > for the specific feature or problem you're working on is something we > definitely encourage. right and this is the other point I would like to make, that with every change, the testing system would be able to determine which tests to run and if there are no tests or not enough tests yet, then it will encourage/remind the developer in a friendly manner to write one. In german one would say "steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein" I guess it translates to "constant dropping wears away a stone " :-) > Later review might find that it's redundant and > one of them might get removed, but a lengthy test suite is a small price > to pay for code that can be trusted. I am really not against a lengthy test suite, it is really not one against the other. > > With IDE tools like Eclipse or Idea, you can trace the derivation and > usage of each class, which can give you hints about which tests might be > appropriate, but the interconnections can quickly become too complicated > to track. I think that's where "human" experience can help Thanks Michael > > Every time I go diving into the source code, I am impressed and daunted > by the complex web of inheritance and interdependence that Lucene/Solr > contains. From what I've seen, our codebase makes effective use of just > about every capability that Java offers. > > Thanks, > Shawn > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
