Finally, we have a working, if incomplete, set of unit tests in our project. Thanks, Saggi (and others!).
Every module should have comprehensive unit tests. Writing good unit tests can be hard, and writing testable code is even harder. However, I would like to request that every new module, and every new functionality have both: testable code and a unit test that proves it.
In my opinion this should be non-optional. I hope anybody nacks a patch with no accompanying unit test, before I'm tempted to accept it.
In a less dramatic tone, I wish new files are added to pep8's whitelist, so that we advance towards clearer code in Vdsm.
What do you say? Can this be a "formal" policy?
Regards, Dan.
----- Original Message -----
Finally, we have a working, if incomplete, set of unit tests in our project. Thanks, Saggi (and others!).
Every module should have comprehensive unit tests. Writing good unit tests can be hard, and writing testable code is even harder. However, I would like to request that every new module, and every new functionality have both: testable code and a unit test that proves it.
In my opinion this should be non-optional. I hope anybody nacks a patch with no accompanying unit test, before I'm tempted to accept it.
In a less dramatic tone, I wish new files are added to pep8's whitelist, so that we advance towards clearer code in Vdsm.
What do you say? Can this be a "formal" policy?
+2 :)
Regards, Dan. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/16/2012 09:15 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
Finally, we have a working, if incomplete, set of unit tests in our project. Thanks, Saggi (and others!).
Every module should have comprehensive unit tests. Writing good unit tests can be hard, and writing testable code is even harder. However, I would like to request that every new module, and every new functionality have both: testable code and a unit test that proves it.
In my opinion this should be non-optional. I hope anybody nacks a patch with no accompanying unit test, before I'm tempted to accept it.
In a less dramatic tone, I wish new files are added to pep8's whitelist, so that we advance towards clearer code in Vdsm.
What do you say? Can this be a "formal" policy?
Regards, Dan.
+1 Do we have any public documentation on the wiki regarding running these unit tests? I couldn't find any.
Lee - --
Lee Yarwood Software Maintenance Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd 200 Fowler Avenue IQ Farnborough, Farnborough, Hants GU14 7JP
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Brendan Lane (Ireland), Matt Parson(USA), Charlie Peters (USA)
GPG fingerprint : A5D1 9385 88CB 7E5F BE64 6618 BCA6 6E33 F672 2D76
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org