On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:20 PM, jerry gay wrote:
On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <particle> and i'm not interested in testing every
revision,
> when so many might be coding standards
Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards?
because not all coding standard tests are run with 'make test'. some
tests were still under development, or too noisy, or took too long.
this means that running
make test
and running
prove t/codingstd
will give you *very* different results. the correctness and
performance problems with coding standard tests have largely been
solved, and i'm now in favor of enabling all these tests during make
test. this will require a large number of commits up front to fix the
current list of failures, but would prevent developers from committing
code that's not up to snuff.
~jerry
Should we even require all of these tests to be ran by default? These
tests should never fail for a user compiling a release version of
parrot, so should they need to test them? They're good for developers,
but only developers. And from a prove t/codingstd, should parrot's
tests test any of languages? A language's coding standards should be a
personal preference of the language author. Plus, some of the failures
are from the tests testing documentation as well as source, so it seems
to be slightly exaggerated.
