> That's ok. For the initial bit, can you just zip/tgz the
> directory. Provide patches after the initial additions
> have been comitted. I am waiting to commit
> till the dummy method javadocs are removed (maybe an awk
> script might be quick?)
done. but where do i send the zip? Or did you me
-1 on committing any patches without unit tests anymore. It
destabilizes code too much. Even to scratchpad because then the code
never moves out of scratchpad. We learned this lesson already. It
doesn't matter how good or bad or how much we want it...no unit tests +
doco...it stays as patch
Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2005, 20:38 -0700 schrieb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> -1 on committing any patches without unit tests anymore. It
> destabilizes code too much. Even to scratchpad because then the code
> never moves out of scratchpad. We learned this lesson already. It
> doesn't matter how go
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -1 on committing any patches without unit tests
> anymore. It
> destabilizes code too much. Even to scratchpad
> because then the code
> never moves out of scratchpad. We learned this
> lesson already. It
> doesn't matter how good or bad or how much we want
> i
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 20:38 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -1 on committing any patches without unit tests anymore. It
> destabilizes code too much. Even to scratchpad because then the code
> never moves out of scratchpad. We learned this lesson already. It
> doesn't matter how good or ba
Quoting Amol Deshmukh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But...
* Unit tests:
do you mean *all* unit tests, some unit tests that
test
basic flows or unit tests with complete code coverage?
not all, some tests, testing the basic functionality.
Also I guess that means that I'm on my own till the
code moves into CV
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Quoting Amol Deshmukh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>> * Docos...
>> I assume javadocs. Correct me if you meant
>> otherwise...
>
> javadocs for the primary methods.
>
And a basic how-to .. how to use the api. Even if only a few lines.
tting into scratchpad (?)
Thanks and Regards,
~ amol
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:11 PM
> To: poi-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FormulaEvaluator Partial Implementation
>
>
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 08:54 -0400, Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> TWIC:
>
> I've started writing automated tests and
> I can see how they are immensely helpful :)
>
See, told you so! ha ha..! :)
> I have written the user api docs and contributors
> guide which in itself was a GoodThing, since that
>
> --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2005-05-12
> 20:38 ---
> Another thought, on the tests... Why do you need
separate
> test methods/classes
> for each eval if you are directly reading it from
the excel
> That way,
> one method (with asserts in a loop) will test all
Some comments inline.
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 12:30 -0700, Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> >
> > --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2005-05-12
> > 20:38 ---
> > Another thought, on the tests... Why do you need
> separate
> > test methods/classes
> > for each eval if you are directl
> > > --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 2005-05-12
> > > 20:38 ---
> No, you would... you'll get the formula from excel, and each formula
> would be a separate assert, and in the assert comment, you put the
> formula. so:
>
> while (get all cells) {
> ...
> a
> But what happens when one assert fails - wouldnt the
> AssertionError cause the cells that follow to never be
> tested. (BTW, I'm a JUnit novice, so I may be wrong
> - in which case we can even continue this discussion
> off the list to avoid some embarassment to me ;)
>
No, you are correct,
13 matches
Mail list logo
