Hi ----- Original Message ----- > Marc-André Lureau <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > -snip- > > > >> > >> I'd be willing to take this as is with a suitable TODO comment > >> explaining where we want to go with this file. Perhaps > >> > >> /* > >> * This program tests QMP commands that aren't interesting enough to > >> * warrant their own test program. > >> * > >> * TODO The tests we got here now aren't good examples, because they > >> * don't really exercise the commands, but only demonstrate specific > >> * bugs we've fixed. > >> */ > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > It looks like a comment that may stale. I have a few tests in some wip > > branch that will go naturally there, so I hope it won't remain bug-fix > > only checks. I can't say how long it will take to get there though, so I > > am fine with a comment anyway, perhaps without TODO? > > > > thanks > > Since you got more tests coming up, we have several workable options: > > (1) Delay this patch until we got more substantial tests. I'm wary of > rejecting the imperfect solution I can have now for a better > solution I might get some day, but since you already got something > better in the pipeline, I'd be happy to wait in this case. > > (2) Apply it now, with my TODO. Adding tests should eventually resolve > the TODO. If we forget to delete it then, it'll go stale. But > it'll be pretty obviously stale. > > (3) Apply it now, without my TODO. Until we acquire tests that would > resolve the TODO, the file is an unmarked bad example. > > I like (1) better than (2), because it's less churn, and I don't expect > to lose anything. (3) my least favourite option, because I prefer maybe > having an obviously stale TODO in the future over having an umarked bad > example now.
Please go for 2, the other series is unrelated and I don't know when I am going to send it. thanks
