On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:33:23AM +0100, Josef Reidinger wrote: > > But as seen in this example, this is often not practical. If your > > code depends on the status of things beyond your immediate control, > > you'd have to mock all that. In this particular case, who would have > > foreseen that a seemingly unrelated scenario like having a RAID on > > the previous installation might lead to such a crash? > > If it happen first time like in this case I usually capture target map > ( as hand crafting target map is pain ) and then write at least > regression test, that I know that covering this case.
Well, the patch for bug #930091 which introduced the wrong 'next' statement (and btw. nothing else) was apparently not tested, neither with unit-tests nor with integration tests. I'm sure there are good reasons for that, e.g. time pressure. But it shows that the concept of 'we have to test everything' does not work in practice. So any help from static code analysis tools should be welcomed or to quote John Carmack "it is irresponsible to not use it" [1]. Regards, Arvin [1] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/128836/InDepth_Static_Code_Analysis.php -- Arvin Schnell, <[email protected]> Senior Software Engineer, Research & Development SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
