Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion What's next after Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Sergey Yanovich  
View profile  
 More options May 20 2008, 4:51 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Sergey Yanovich <ynv...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:51:15 +0300
Local: Tues, May 20 2008 4:51 am
Subject: Re: What's next after Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Jeff Walden wrote:
> schrep wrote:
>> Gecko 1.9.1:

>> Release date: Beta stable summer 2008, production stable end of 2008
>> Status: In development
>> Accepted Changes: Anything that doesn't break frozen API's.   Passing
>> unit tests and proof of no negative impact on perf from Talos required
>> before check-in

> How many tests (or reasons why tests cannot be written) can we require
> here?  Branch obviously can't have a lower a bar than trunk, but that
> doesn't say anything about what should happen on trunk.  I think we
> should set the bar for trunk fairly high and require a reviewed (even if
> it's just a sanity check) test be committed with each fix (or the
> explanation why it can't be tested and a litmus ? if appropriate).  If
> it fails without the patch and succeeds with, that's good enough.  On a
> case-by-case basis you'd want to require some bugs to have a greater
> number, depth, and concentration of tests, but even if each bug had just
> a single shallow test that'd be an improvement over where we are now.

This should be the rule!

My experience tells, if there is no test for a feature, there is no
feature. The test has a wide meaning, it may be automated or manual. But
manual tests are unreliable, so test should be automated, unless that's
impossible.

Apart from protecting features, tests simplify communication between
developers. The argument like "this regresses bug XXXXXX" are often
rebutted with "that's OK, we have a new vision", but there is a general
consensus that breaking unit tests isn't acceptable.

--
Sergey Yanovich


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google