dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think though that more people
would read and embrace your
thoughts if you would find
a more concise way to put
them across :-).
Mea Culpa. I'll shut up for a while.
That's the right form with the wrong message :-).
Tim
I am investigating how to write a comprehensive parser regression test. What I
mean by this is something you wouldn't normally run frequently, but rather
something that we could use to get past the known to fail tests now disabled.
The problem is no one understands the parser well enough to
2009/8/12 dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com:
I am investigating how to write a comprehensive parser regression test. What
I mean by this is something you wouldn't normally run frequently, but rather
something that we could use to get past the known to fail tests now
disabled. The problem is no
--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
I read this paragraph first, then read the paragraph above
and
couldn't help saying WHAT?!?. Using a huge set of pages
is a poor
replacement for decent tests.
I am not proposing that the CPRT be a substitute for decent tests.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM, dan nessettdness...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
I read this paragraph first, then read the paragraph above
and
couldn't help saying WHAT?!?. Using a huge set of pages
is a poor
replacement for decent
dan nessett dness...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am investigating how to write a comprehensive parser regression test. What
I mean by this is something you wouldn't normally run frequently, but rather
something that we could use to get past the known to fail tests now
disabled. The problem is no
2009/8/12 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
To elaborate on the final point. Sometimes the parser is changed and
it breaks output on purpose. Case in point was when Tim rewrote the
preprocessor. Some parts of syntax were intentionally changed. You'd
have to establish a new baseline for this new
On 8/12/09 2:55 PM, Chad wrote:
To elaborate on the final point. Sometimes the parser is changed and
it breaks output on purpose. Case in point was when Tim rewrote the
preprocessor. Some parts of syntax were intentionally changed. You'd
have to establish a new baseline for this new behavior
On 8/12/09 4:05 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
Exactly. Instead of throwing a huge amount of wikitext at it and
hoping that'll cover everything, we should make our test suite more
comprehensive by adding lots of new parser test. Of course there'll be
*some* crazy bugs concerning weird interactions
