On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:18, Chris McDonough wrote: > On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: > > So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring > > all tests > > to be doctests. > > If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be > somewhat looser than mandating a particular test/doc framework > (something along the lines of "must have good test coverage and > appropriate narrative documentation", maybe with examples of what > this means that could be in doctest format by default). Would that > be acceptable?
If there is enough outcry by developers, then yes. ;-) The problem is that it becomes hard to verify that documentation does not deteriorate over time. That means we need certification manager overhead to check that; and it would actually be a difficult task. With doctests I can at least force the developer to update the documentation examples, and if s/he is interested in his package at all, s/he will update the text around it as well. BTW, I have no problem to make the requirements tool independent. I could do the following changes: Doctest-based Testing --> Documentation-based Testing Actually I just did. Maybe I should also change:: Minimal Documentation --> Minimal, Testable Documentation Complete Documentation --> Complete, Testable Documentation Mmmh, now that I look at the matrix, I really think I should have a small explanatory snippet for each metric (below the matrix). Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
