Hi Mathias, > I don't see a lot of sense in making tests mandatory just because we > have them. If a test probably can help to find problems in areas where > we know that we have them, fine. So when tests are defined it's > necessary to see which problems they can catch and if that's what we need. > > I had a look on the regressions that I can judge - some of them might > have been found with convwatch, for most of them I have serious doubts > that any test we have would have found them. It's still working with the > product that is necessary. > > So until now I fail to see which tests could help us further without > burning a lot of time.
Quite true ... A personal goal I set for the 3.1 release was to write complex test cases for (most of) the show stoppers found in the DBA project. Since we regularly run our complex tests on all CWSes, at least those concrete stoppers would not have much chances to re-appear. (And as it is usually the case with complex test cases, they also cover related areas pretty well.) Unfortunately, we didn't have too many 3.1 stoppers so far :), so I am not sure whether it will help. But it's worth a try, /me thinks. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [email protected] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
