Yes, now I see the reasoning behind it. You're right and after giving some thoughts I realized that my changes don't really matter and it's better the way it was before.
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:50:59 AM UTC-4, Klaus Aehlig wrote: > > > > This change is dangerous: genName is also used in tests different from > the > > > ones > > > you added, in particular in ones used to verify encoding and decoding; > so > > > using > > > only those specific names makes those exisiting tests less useful. > What is > > > the > > > purpose of that change? > > > > > > I've been running the test suite multiple times as I was changing the > tests > > and I didn't see any failures in the rest of the test cases. Is this > really > > that dangerous? > > I meant it is dangerous in the sense of testing less(!). So the risk that > I'm > seeing is that you might miss bugs that later changes introduce, e.g., to > the > serialisation code that otherwise would have been caught by this test. > > Basically, your change is like removing test cases; all the resulting test > suits > will, of course, pass, but it is still dangerous, as you the completeness > of the > tests is reduced. > > > What kind of troubles for decoding/encoding can this change introduce? > > You will no longer test if you correctly encode/decode host names that are > more > complicated than "name1" to "name40". While the other considered > characters in host > names (minus sign, underscore) require no special quoting in JSON, it is > still a good > idea to test whether they get encoded correctly; same for FQDN of > different length > or with duplicate parts (like foo.foo.example.com), etc. > > Regards, > Klaus > > -- > Klaus Aehlig > Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Str. 33, 80636 Muenchen > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle >
