On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Paul Belanger <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12-06-26 07:08 PM, Ken Barber wrote: >> >> I wanted to see what peoples thoughts were around when an acceptance >> test is required, there was a debate on a ticket recently and two >> people told me it wasn't necessary to add acceptance tests for a >> particular case > > For me, you need to decided what you are trying to solve. A problem with > regressions in release branches, new features going into master or security > issues. I think the hardest part is trying to determine which scenario you > add them in, and which you don't. Honestly, I'm of the mind set it doesn't > matter. Every time you make a change to code, you should be adding a test > too.
FWIW, this is the policy that the developers here at Puppet follow: write a test that demonstrates the problem first, then fix the problem, so that you know you actually have a test for it. Many of those are unit style tests, though, rather than high level acceptance tests that exercise the whole product. > Now, if developers don't see the value in adding them, I think there is a > bigger issue. Is it because they don't want too or just because of the > amount of time it takes to add and test them? Again, ideally it would be > easy to drop new tests into puppet and have them executed. You would be absolutely right. :) -- Daniel Pittman ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
