On Saturday 03 January 2009 02:30:36 pm Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > Thanks for the review, Joe. > > On 1/2/09 4:17 PM, "joenee...@gmail.com" <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reviewers: Carl.D.Sorensen, > > > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/11857/diff/1/2 > > File input/regression/fret-diagrams.ly (right): > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/11857/diff/1/2#newcode1 > > Line 1: \version "2.12.0" > > This regtest is getting quite large. Is there a logical way to split it > > up (eg. fret-diagrams-landscape, fret-diagrams-string-count, etc)? > > The regtest can easily be split up. Is there a reason to do so? I would > think that any time a change was made to the fret diagram code, the whole > regtest would need to be run anyway. > > I'm not trying to be argumentative. I had the same impression, that the > regtest was too long, but I needed all of those tests to make sure that > everything worked properly.
If a regtest breaks, it's much easier to spot the problem (particularly if the person trying to spot it isn't familiar with fret diagrams) if the test is small. That way, when someone breaks string-count, say, then "make check" will complain about input/regression/fret-diagrams-string-count.ly and it is perfectly obvious which bits of the fret diagram code were broken and which weren't. For an extreme example, imagine that all of the input/regression/spacing-*.ly were combined into one giant test and it broke. Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
