On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Julien Phalip <jpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Karen for this detailed answer. Your reasoning regarding > this ticket does make a lot of sense. I totally agree with you that > tests are highly important and that this ticket is lacking useful > information for whoever is not familiar with that area of the code. If > I recall, the reason I hadn't written tests for the patch was because > of the way #7769 had been checked in shortly before 1.0's release. I > had thought that, like #7769, the patch was "trivial" enough for not > including tests. But again, as you said, the ticket was lacking > information and I should have at least put a link to #7769 in the > description. I've just done that. I'll think about writing tests but > it seems a bit overkill in this case for something which looks like a > small oversight. > Pointing out where a similar change has been checked in without an added test might incline me more towards doing the same, if I'm feeling adventurous. It might, on the other hand, push me towards thinking "hey, there's a bunch of stuff here that isn't being properly tested...we should correct that before proceeding to fiddle with any more of it." Personally I tend towards the latter reaction...in this particular case I wonder what other methods may be missing here and is there some way to convince myself this ticket is the last of its kind we need to fix. But, if I decide to go ahead and just deal with this one, now, pointing out where a similar change has been checked in without a test doesn't get me past needing to manually verify for myself the existence of the problem and effectiveness of the fix. I'm a terrible Python compiler and like to verify I've run a line of code before checking it in, if only to make sure it doesn't have any syntax errors. For this ticket I still have no clue how to recreate this particular problem on my own or exercise the changed line of code. So, you can wait for someone with more familiarity with this code to have time to look at it. They may know immediately how to demonstrate the problem and verify the change fixes it, or they may feel it's patently obvious that the problem exists and the change fixes it with no syntax errors or anything, and just check it in. Or, if you want to widen the circle of people who may conceivably move the ticket along, you can provide enough recreation detail in the ticket so that even someone who isn't familiar with this area of the code can recreate the problem and convince themselves they've exercised the changed line of code before checking it in. Karen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
