On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 07:57:50PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 16:59 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > With all this, I do not see the point of having a new API. > > > Also, where are the test cases for it? > > > If there is no point, why worrying about tests? > > I don't know yet if there is a point or not, I provided my view. > I think you know better than me the code in question. It might > be that I'm mistaken, and if so the good justification in the > (currently absent) cover letter may well help with that. > > > Also, do you always communicate with the people > > just like they're your (well-) paid personnel? > > What do you mean? Test cases is the requirement for the new APIs > added to the lib/. It's really should be regular practice for > the code development independently on the project. If you think > frustrated by this, I can tell you that I was more than once in > the past in the same situation until I learnt it very well and > now when I submit anything to the lib I always add test cases.
Yes. Common code needs to have a rigorous self test suite, because I see no point in replacing inadequately tested bespoke parsing code with inadequately tested common parsing code. --D > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > >
