[Numpy-discussion] ticket 788: possible blocker
Wed May 14 01:00:49 CDT 2008
2008/5/14 Matthew Brett <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Stefan, sometimes the fix really is clear and a test is like closing the
> > barn door after the horse has bolted. Sometimes it isn't even clear *how*
> > test. I committed one fix and omitted a test because I couldn't think of
> > anything really reasonable. I think concentrating on unit tests is more
> > productive in the long run because we will find *new* bugs, and if done
> > right they will also cover spots where old bugs were found.
> I must say that I have certainly (correctly) fixed a bug, and then
> broken the code somewhere else resulting in the same effect as the
> original bug, and missed it because I didn't put in a test the first
> time. I do agree (with everyone else I think) that it's a very good
> habit to get into to submit a test with every fix, no matter how
I agree as well, what may be obvious to someone is not for someone else, and
there are many examples where I thought the code did this but in fact did
that (and I saw it regularly in my courses with some students).
French PhD student
Website : http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/
Blogs : http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion