"normal" codepaths ought to be tested. Error processing with try/except blocks might be hard to test in the 1st place, and less crucial.
On 5 October 2024 14:38:19 BST, Kwankyu Lee <ekwan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >.... But I don't know how big a problem the codecov issue is ... > > >We want to regard the check failure as there is a problem with the PR that >the author should resolve. > >Currently the codecov failure triggers the check failure, but no reviewer >and no author regard the codecov failure as a problem with the PR (this is >the practice that you are used to) > >The check failure by the codecov failure is just annoying. > > >Still, "untested is broken", right? > > >This is still a good maxim. But our practice is "broken is then tested". I >think our practice is not bad. Testing every code path would bloat our set >of doctests. > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"sage-devel" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To view this discussion on the web visit >https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6bf94da9-9a3c-4b80-ab2a-7006eeaf7d1dn%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/36997C7F-3FC3-42F0-9964-DD4D4D91837A%40gmail.com.
