On 3 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Andriy Palamarchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Always succeed *under Windows*. Do you really, really, > > really think all the tests will succeed under Wine > > from day 1 and we will be able to maintain them > > failure-free? > > Absolutely. There's a very simple way of enforcing that: I'm not > comitting anything that causes make test to fail. > > > The value of unit tests is exactly in failures! The > > more failures of unit tests we have - the better test > > developers do their work. > > Well, I guess it's a philosophical point, but for me the value of the > tests is for regression testing. If you allow the tests to fail you'll > pretty soon have 90% of the tests fail somewhere, and this is > completely useless except maybe as a list of things we still have to > do. While if the tests usually succeed, as soon as something fails you > know there's a regression and you have to fix it.
This is why the notion of 'TODO tests' or known differences (my '.ref.diff') is useful. This way when writing a test you don't have to restrict yourself to just what works at a given point in Wine, and still, the tests don't fail. But as soon as something changes in the failure mode, or even stops failing, then you know it. -- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/ Nouvelle version : les anciens bogues ont été remplacés par de nouveaux.
