Agreed Brain. Great job Patrick! I like this approach as well Brian. We should add tests when fixing bugs and when adding features, long term benefits far outweigh the short term costs.
Jeff > On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Brian Leathem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Patrick has recently added a javascript testing framework to patternfly core > [1]. Patrick has a secondary PR adding some basic smoke-level tests for each > of our patterns [2]. Great job Patrick! > > Having these tests present is really valuable, as we gain more confidence in > introducing changes to the codebase knowing that we haven't broken anything > in the process. (Note: the angular-patternfly project has a lot of tests > already present). > > I propose that we go about adding new tests to patternfly core in a rather > pragmatic approach: Whenever a new bug is filed against patternfly core, we > verify the bug report by writing a test. Once the bug is resolved, that same > test is used to verify the fix. Finally the test is present to guard against > any regressions re-introducing the bug. Three birds, one stone. > > With the above approach for adding tests we will grow out test coverage of > patternfly core over an extended period of time. We will increase our > confidence in the codebase without requiring any dedicated sprints to "catch > up". > > Thoughts? > > Brian > > [1] https://github.com/patternfly/patternfly/pull/342 > <https://github.com/patternfly/patternfly/pull/342> > [2] https://github.com/patternfly/patternfly/pull/354 > <https://github.com/patternfly/patternfly/pull/354>_______________________________________________ > Patternfly mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/patternfly
_______________________________________________ Patternfly mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/patternfly
