Re: [BUG] ob-sql.el: probably an extra paren

[Achim Gratz <Stromeko@Nexgo.DE>]

Am 21.03.2013 14:41, schrieb Bastien:
> The test are not automatic, they are manually triggered, so we don't
> have an "automated tests framework" -- or am I misunderstanding what
> an automated test framework is?

What you probably have in mind is a continuous integration framework 
that triggers the test framework.

> This I 100% agree with.  I don't push commits that are known to me as
> not passing the tests :)

The cavalier attitude is not funny, smiley or not.

> It is about life being short and time being spent on testing vs
> coding.

No, this is about doing it right or doing it twice.

I have a fairly slow machine, but running "make test" or even "make 
test-dirty" with all tests enabled has not consumed an appreciable 
amount of my lifetime and probably never will.  It has however saved me 
some pushes that had incomplete commits or some "obviously safe" last 
minute changes that turned out not to be or triggered some unexpected 
behaviour someplace else.  I have also spent a good deal of time weeding 
out false positives from bisects that could have been automated if one 
could assume that each commit was always passing its tests.

> If you can come up with a pre-push hook that is clever enough to
> distinguish trivial-and-safe changes against those who need to be
> tested, please submit one.  A trivial-and-safe change is either:
>
> - a change against non-code files;
> - a change in docstring.
>
> I don't think this is easy to do.

It is also a waste of time and not necessary.  Simply run the tests on 
each commit touching lisp/ and testing/ and reject the data from the 
push if any test fails.  Not sure if Jason wants to put this on the 
server, though.


Regards,
-- 
Achim.

(on the road :-)