On 1/2/09 9:16 PM, "Joe Neeman" <joenee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > OK, so should I create a separate regtest for each item in fret-diagram-details? I selected the diagrams to make sure that all of them were covered, but they are all mixed in together. I could imagine having something on the order of 15 individual regtests for the fret diagrams. Each one would then be very tightly focused. Would that be preferable? Or should I try to find some middle ground? Is there a problem if I have too many regtests? Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
