On Mon, 2007-08-01 at 12:38 -0600, James Hawkins wrote: > On 1/8/07, Bill Medland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-08-01 at 12:11 -0600, James Hawkins wrote: > > > On 1/8/07, Bill Medland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bill Medland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > Add tests structure to odbccp32 > > > > > > > > > > You need to add tests for this patch to be accepted. Also, you've > > > labeled the test suite 'error'. How many functions in odbccp32 are > > > you planning on testing in this file? I see only SQLInstallerError > > > and SQLPostInstallerError in the spec file, which is not enough to > > > warrant a whole test file. Please read other test files to get a > > > better of idea what needs to happen with these tests. > > > > > Why?? > > > > What's the point of adding code that does absolutely nothing? In an > open source project, there's no guarantee that you'll come back and > finish what you started, though there are several other reasons why > this is not allowed. > > > I was trying to make things easier for Alexandre. If I write any tests > > in the patch then I need to write the code to ensure that we actually > > pass those tests (which we don't because we don't actually really do > > anything yet and then the patch ends up doing all three things; adding > > testing, adding the error reporting and then adding the actual function > > that I want to get working). > > That is what todo_wine is for. It sounds like you need to read the > developer documentation at > http://winehq.org/site/docs/winedev-guide/index > > > My aim is: > > + to submit one trivial patch which adds testing; a no-brainer > > + to submit the code for the error stack and SQLInstallerError (so that > > when I add the function I want I will be able to do the error reporting > > straight off instead of the usual hack of "I'll do the error reporting > > when I get around to it in another two years time" > > + to submit the code for SQLGetInstalledDrivers (which is what I > > actually want to get done). > > > > And why can't I have error.c? The purpose of error.c is to contain the > > tests of the error handling, as you surmised, so I feel that I named it > > well. That is two functions, as you surmised. However they constitute > > a well-defined subsystem of the dll so why should they not be in a > > separate file? > > Two functions is definitely not a well-defined subsystem. They are > helper functions and they don't need their own test file. > > > How many tests? Well, to start with I envisage about 10. However as I > > said I believe that the measure is not the length; it is the modularity. > > > > Ten tests is fine, but like I said, they don't need a separate file. > Ah, heck. I submit one patch and get the usual deathly silence as to whether it has been rejected outright or whether it is being put to one side for a few days.
So I try splitting it up so that Alexandre's decisionmaking is easier And this is what I get for it. I have better things to do with my time. I will stop trying to simplify things. If Alexandre wants to accept the version I submitted on Friday, fine. If not then it;s no sking off my nose. Bye (Yes, I am upset) -- Bill Medland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
