Thanks for all your comments.
@John, Geert:
Thanks for bringing the expectations to the point that unit tests as
such and especially on master/maint always must pass.
I also get the point that further refinement of the test results by
utilitzing the verdicts "xpass" and "xfail" is not desired. I have taken
these out now (in #391, #404 to come).
Regarding: "disingenuous" - I needed to look it up.
Seems to be a very strong word of disappointment. My apologies for
provoking this reaction. That was absolutely not my intention. Using
#391 is just more appropriate as it already includes changes which I did
not have a chance yet to put them to #404. That is why talking about
#391 - that has the same problem as #404 - seemed more meaningful to me.
In General:
From the pure fact that code is not used it is very hard for me to
judge if the code is not needed.
I can only see that a feature is already there, and conclude from this,
that at some point it was agreed to be there. If it is not working, it
should be fixed.
And of course I see the point that the effort to fix bugs that have not
been complaint about should be balanced. In this special case the items
can be fixed in reasonable short time.
By that is is okay for me, if these findings will never end up in
master/maint. Getting to know the code and getting to know your
expectations about proper testing (and getting some more historical
lessons about GnuCash) is already a great gain.
Carsten
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
