Thank you Kirk for the amazing write-up!
I want to highlight that the problem of only having one kind of test goes
both ways. Frequently we might think that changing something on the unit
level is going to resolve a bug, but in reality the real world use case now
fails a little later. I think that
This is a very important question and it really showcases the biggest
problem facing Apache Geode in my opinion.
If existing tests don't fail when you change the code, then that's a sign
of a serious problem with our tests. Most likely the test isn't actually
covering the code and all of its branc
Xiaojian, are you describing a situation where we change implementation
because we already have a failing test that somehow got merged in?
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
> How about the code change is already covered by existing tests?
>
> Not to reduce test coverage seems
How about the code change is already covered by existing tests?
Not to reduce test coverage seems a more reasonable standard.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> On 12/29/17 12:05, Kirk Lund wrote:
>
>> I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests
+1
On 12/29/17 12:05, Kirk Lund wrote:
I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all PRs.
This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions.
A test would both confirm the existence of the bug in the first place and
then confirm the fix. Without such a test,
👍🏻
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
> +1
>
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Kirk Lund wrote:
> >
> > I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all
> PRs.
> > This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions.
> >
> > A test would both
+1
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Kirk Lund wrote:
>
> I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all PRs.
> This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions.
>
> A test would both confirm the existence of the bug in the first place and
> then confirm the f
I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all PRs.
This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions.
A test would both confirm the existence of the bug in the first place and
then confirm the fix. Without such a test, any developer could come along
later, modi
