Hi Justin,
First of all thanks for the Tests (and finding the Bug :). You are absolutely
right about your statements but I don’t think its a issue of focus rather than
time and resources (at least in my case). My intention was to bring the ADS
branch to master a soon as possible to encourage contribution (seems like it
worked very well :o). But maybe we need a marker to indicate that we need more
testing (for example with the boundaries I was aware of but didn’t have time to
implement them). So I would suggest to either make an „TODO: Test {concrete
test case}“ in the main code or implement a failing or ignored test in the
Test-Classes which makes clear what Tests are missing. This way we don’t
oversee stuff that still needs testing. What do you think?
No offense taken and thanks again for pointing this out. :)
Sebastian
> Am 20.02.2018 um 03:31 schrieb Justin Mclean :
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks to me that some of the tests are just here to increase coverage and
> we seem to be missing unit test for some of the more simple classes. Perhaps
> there’s a bit too much focus on the happy path and we’re not always checking
> boundary conditions and the like. Obviously this is a good start but do you
> think we can improve on this?
>
> I just checked in some tests for ByteValue and you note that one of the tests
> is failing due to a (minor) issue in the code. It's easily fixed but I think
> it illustrates the point that this sort of mistake is easy to make and easy
> to find via unit tests. There’s no finger of blame here, I make those sort of
> mistakes (and more) as well. Even more reason to have tests :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
