On 2018/05/03 02:48:10, Dan Eble wrote:
I would appreciate a close review of these tests by at least one of
the
long-time contributors or pro users. Contexts are a central part of
LilyPond
and if I've misjudged how any of these cases should work, I don't want
it to
slip by. Thanks.
If you have suggestions on a better approach to testing, I'm all ears.
James, please leave this in review until there is feedback.
This is a very impressive test suite. You have done a great job of considering possibilities and developing code to demonstrate them. I'm a little bit surprised by the nature of this testing, however. I have always assumed that context id's should be unique, and that if one created two contexts of the same type with the same id, the results would be undefined. You've looked at how the code works and ferreted out the behaviors you are testing in this set of tests, but I don't believe that the behavior you have identified should be contracturally-defined behavior. In my opinion, the most ideal result when one tries to create a new context with the same type and id of an existing context would be to generate an error, something like "Error: duplicate Staff with ID of A". If we promise the behavior that your regression tests demonstrate, then we have developed an official scope for context IDs, and most LilyPond constructs do not have scope. But this is just my initial opinion, and I am certainly open to other arguments. Thanks, Carl https://codereview.appspot.com/348760043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
