+1 to just add things with appropriate tests. in the case of Spec in particular, the problem is that is really hard to have UI testing :( Also… sometimes you break backward compatibility, that’s inevitable… and is ok if is for the best (like in the case of Spec… it was to gain ui platform independence).
but anyway, I do agree that we need to raise our acceptance criteria :) Esteban On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:22, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > We should have a policy on this. I've been guilty of writing new features > without tests too. It's bad enough we have to deal with untested legacy > code, but to replace key parts of the system with untested code doesn't seem > like such a good idea. In particular, the latest Spec refactoring broke a > lot of the UI. It's a validation of how well it's been received. It has > become a crucial part of much of the IDE. At various points in 3.0 the > ChangeSorter, Versionner, and SliderModel have been broken, to name a few, > and I get mysterious and sudden, often image wrecking, DNUs that appear, > like TextModel>>#asText. It's made it very hard to work, especially when the > compiler, RPackage, etc are changing (and sometimes breaking) at the same > time. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TDD-in-Core-tp4735378.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
