On Mon Feb 13 13:05:01 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > all PMCs (src/pmc/*.pmc) should be tested. the basic types, as defined > in PDD17 (docs/pdds/clip/pdd17_basic_types.pod) should be given higher > priority, so tests should be developed first to cover these. > > not surprisingly, basic types have a number of tests already, but > there are holes in test coverage that should be plugged. after basic > types are well-tested, remaining PMC types distributed in the parrot > core should be targeted. > > this is a job that requires the ability to read c source, and read and > write pir and/or pasm test code. however, deep knowledge of these > languages is not required. > > takers most welcome. > ~jerry
Adding more native PMC tests is a good idea, but this ticket isn't closeable as described. There should be a concrete criteria (or at least a reasonably simple subjective one) for determining when a PMC is sufficiently well-tested. Something based on code coverage (via make cover) would be a good start.
