Shouldn't the tests test the code for correctness? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:34 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Benjamin Lerer < > benjamin.le...@datastax.com > > wrote: > > > Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is why > we > > have a review check list. > > I never put a patch available without having the tests passing but most > of > > my patches never pass on the first try. We always make mistakes no matter > > how hard we try. > > The reviewer job is to catch those mistakes by looking at the patch from > > another angle. Of course, sometime, both of them fail. > > > > Agreed. Review should not just be a "tests pass, +1" rubber stamp, but > actually checking the code for correctness. The former is just process; > the latter actually catches problems that the tests would not. (And this > is true even if the tests are much much better than ours.) > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced >
