https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=35904
Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl --- Comment #5 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #4) > Test plan: > Read the code and confirm that everything makes sense. > QA: Do you have a better way for this? Yes it's dirty! There may be a better way, but *niet uit de losse mouw* (not off the cuff?). So I agree that it is dirty and only convenient for the unit tests. Since Auth is already a problem, why make it worse with convenience parameters for testing only? Could we address the lengthy tests in the .t itself? At first glance I am not convinced if we should proceed like this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/