[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

regression tests

From: Graham Percival
Subject: regression tests
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:50:33 -0700
User-agent: Icedove (X11/20070607)

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Ok.  There it says

   if there is any regtests which is useful as documentation and there
   is no corresponding snippet in LSR

Although I agree that would be nice, currently that statement is
ridiculous.  It is way too early for that?  We have about 600
regression tests, and there are only about 220 lsr snippets.

And only about 10% regtests are useful *as documentation*. 60 easily fits inside 220. If we missed a few, we can add them.

Most of the regtests are easily covered by the manual. Especially now that we're adding new regtests whenever we fix a bug (which is quite appropriate)

What's the documentation value of ? It works exactly like you'd expect it to work. Or ?

 I agree
that newbies should not look at the regression test, but if you shut
out power-users from the regression test, they'll miss about 400
features?  We will have all sorts of questions: Can lily do this?

Power-users know how to read the program reference. They can see the features there.

Look, the regression tests are not _intended_ as documentation, and they _should not_ be intended as documentation. They are regression tests! Users should have three places to look for help:
- manual
- program reference (advanced users)
- special-approved-lsr-snippets-in-our-docs

(ok, that's 3.5 places)

I wish that more users searched the mailist archives, but they don't. Useful tips sent to the mailist are essentially lost knowledge; that's why I've really been pushing LSR.

It's also is an amazing advertisement for lily's features?

Advertising goes in the Examples or in the new "inspirational headword" examples that are planned in GDP.

 How is
a user supposed to report a bug or do a feature request without
having access to the regression tests?

Users report bugs without reading the *manual*. They're not going to check the regtests.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]