On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:35 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> I am happy to see that you and I are on the same term on the majority of the
> points. But let me nitpick on a few points below.
:-)
> > My yard-stick would be that if writing the unit-test takes longer than
> > finding & fixing the bug - then we have a problem,
>
> While I think I agree with the general point you are trying to make here, I
> would have to slightly disagree with how you chose to word it.
=)
> By this wording, if a bug fix takes a mere 5 minute, or even 30 minute
So - of course, its well worth spending that time.
> I personally would still spend a few hours writing a test for a bug I fixed in
> 10 to 30 minutes, because, even if the fix took less than an hour today, the
> same fix at some arbitrary point in the future may take days or weeks just
> because the code may look totally different by then.
Yep; makes sense; so if people have the dedication to do that - that's
great. I like to try to persist at writing tests to the bitter end - it
often gives a far better understanding of the real fix. Then again -
there are some areas where it is just too expensive currently. eg.
layout - though I hope (with some investment) we can fix that so they
become almost easy =) My hope is that if we approach this from several
sides: improved automation, improved ease of testing, more & better test
infrastructure, and also your idea of highlighting unit-testing heros
(who perhaps fix fewer bugs per unit time, but they stay fixed) - then
we can make a real difference.
> Anyway, I just wanted to make these points clear. I hope you didn't
> mind my nitpicking.
I love your precision =) ( and passion for testing ), we need more of
that.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
