harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: Unit testing revisited
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:10:48 GMT
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:37:06AM -0800, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
> >
> >"How should we organize our tests?" has now been the subject of debate for
> >*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same discussion is
> >rehashed.
> And we're making progress. 

Definitely. Lots.

> IMO, it really helped my thinking to 
> distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec 
> tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the whole 
> o.a.h.test.* issue.
> I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where 
> java.util.HashMapTest fits.
> I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.  Now, 
> I see clearly.


> >I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on (such 
> >as,
> >"we don't know, but we can find out", or "we have different ideas on that,
> >but there's room for both", or "this way of doing things is not the best 
> >one
> >but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work anyway")
> >than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of disagreements.
> >
> >Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that "apache projects are
> >characterized by a *productive* development process". Its just my feeling 
> >that for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.
> You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?

I didn't say that! "More productive" means a contrast with a "productive", not
with a "no progress". In fact, productivity and progress are not even on the
same axes -- they're oranges and pears. Discussions are a good thing, especially
early on in the life of a project they're very neccessary.

> >Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other people 
> >to do
> >their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?
> The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but 
> understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace both 
> approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need both apples 
> and oranges.  They aren't exclusionary.

I agree. I also don't want to convince anyone to do things differently. I just
wanted to point out this "consensus" thing and how useful it can be to actively
(instead of lazily) look for it.

*shrug*. When trying to help find consensus leads to /more/ discussion you just
know that you should've kept your mouth shut...


View raw message