On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:22:37AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA, > we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as > possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks, > etc.) we can't help much with, but syntax and behavioral issues, we can.
I think we'd be much better erring on the side of slightly too paranoid than not paranoid enough. > I think our largest goal should be to be able to organize the tests > exactly as the documentation is organized. That doesn't mean anyone > will ever see it, other than us and the testers, but if we can > coordinate them as a unified effort we can (I hope) make life much > easier for the poor souls who will have to track down and add future > tests. > > So from our standpoint, I would propose we simply have fields in each > sub*section like (?): > > =test_group general string behaviors > > =test conversion to boolean > ... code ... > > =test conversion from boolean > ... code ... > > That information can then be sliced out and displayed in whatever > formats we need... for example, exported into /t files automatically. > > Comments? Looks good to me. andrew -- Aquarius: (Jan. 20 - Feb. 18) It's not true that all the good band names are taken. But if believing that keeps you from starting a band, great.
msg23988/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
