From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Goldman Subject: Re: Regression testing for org-mode Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:41:21 -0500 Message-ID: <490135D1.4030208@sift.info> References: <4900A06B.8020605@sift.info> <87wsfyx3tp.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCcb-0004OW-By for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:41:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCcZ-0004OJ-JN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:41:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57993 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KtCcZ-0004OG-Eq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:41:51 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-15.bluehost.com ([69.89.18.115]:60702) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KtCcZ-00064j-BZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:41:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Avdi Grimm Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Avdi Grimm wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Eric Schulte wrote: >> I'm pessimistic that the colossal amount of work involved in wrapping >> all of org-modes extensive and varied functionality into a test >> framework can/should actually be completed. Would it be sufficient to >> simply begin dealing with bug reports in a test-first manner? > > Absolutely. I do NOT recommend making an effort to get test coverage > over existing code just for the sake of coverage - in my experience > this usually leads a lot of work for brittle and not terribly useful > tests. Put tests only around the areas you are about to change. Over > time the coverage will grow. > >> Also, should we start tracking bug reports somewhere (worg), so that >> they can be claimed, tested against, and repaired? > > Not a bad idea. Normally I'd recommend just going with an established > bug tracker like Trac or Lighthouse, but since Org is so great for > managing tasks it seems only right that the developers should "eat > their own dogfood" by using Org to track tickets :-) > Actually, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the notion of using Org to track tickets. The reason is not that org mightn't be up to the job, but that the use of org with git won't be up to it. systems like trac and bugzilla are set up to allow outsiders to post bugs, but if we use git, then we're really raising the bar for bug submission. Instead of filling out a form, a bug reporter would now have to figure out how to use git, pull the org file, modify it, and then either push it (which would require someone to authorize him or her) or submit it to someone else who would push it. That seems inappropriate to me --- when you're developing software a good bug report is very valuable, and one shouldn't turn them away. Unless someone can figure out an easier way for people to submit bugs with what worg has now, I'm inclined to say that trac or bugzilla would be better. Best, r