|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: Trunk still not open |
Date: | Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:22:39 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 |
On 14.03.2014 17:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Not necessarily. You will know how to test a function, but without some overview docs, you will have no idea how to test a complex feature that is built of several functions and variables, and relies on some internals on top of that. Also, internal functions many times don't have doc strings -- a practice that Emacs development accepts as valid.
If I'm a "testing engineer" in a separate department from people who wrote the code (not the case here), then yes, I might like an overview document to understand the code, or write tests for it.
"No code without tests" policy assumes that someone actually can write the code changes, and they need to supply the tests that fail without that.
I.e. you both seem to be referring to some different kind of testing: non-automated, performed by third parties?
If I write automated tests, I'll have to get familiar with the code either way, and it's often its own best documentation.
As another example, testing of infrastructure and C code using just the doc strings is an impossible task. E.g., in what doc string will you find what a 'display' property is supposed to do?
Sure, some introductory/overview manual can be good, or even a detailed one, for C-level features.
Lisp packages often put the intro or overview in the Commentary, though.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |