R P Herrold wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >> Nevertheless, I am attracted to the idea of >> only claim (eg in specs) that which you have a [unit] test for >> >> I wonder if any significant project has ever come close to achieving >> this? > > The code at: http://www.trading-shim.org/ and the doco in the > manual.pdf are completely underlaid by test driven development, with the > tests pulled in and out as a given area is refactored. > > After introductory and interstical material, the meat of the doco itself > is written from test covered behaviours, and particularly the edge > diagrams and so forth are pulled mechanically from the headers to > generate the .dot diagrams with graphviz on the fly. Those are massaged > into .eps's and thence via TeX, into the manual. > > One cannot leave the full test suite enabled at all times, because it > turns a 2 minute test run, looking at one section of changed code, into > a 20 minute one. One loses the 'context' of where one was working when > the cycle is too long. > > We've spend a couple of years full time on the project, and have > essentially completed what we think of as our 1.0 release featureset. > We consider it 'substantial'. GPL v 3 >
Cool! sloccount thinks it represents a 7 man-year effort. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
