[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeal
From: |
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf |
Subject: |
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation) |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:58:39 +0200 |
On 17.10.2003 21:35:01 "Chris B. Vetter" wrote:
>Still, I don't see how this will cover 'faulty' implementations. Yes,
>you will be able to tell whether it works. Yes, you will be able to find
>(at least some) bugs. But no, you won't be able to tell, whether the
>current implementation is _correct_ that is, follows the specification.
>
<example deleted>
>There's no way a test unit will be able to cover these issues.
The fact that unittesting isn't a "solve everything" solution shouldn't
lead to disregard to the merrits it has to offer. Don't be so over
sceptic. Give yourself a buzz and actually *try* unittesting. You'll be
astonished how many bugs you'll discover with ease.
greetings, Lars
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for qualitycontrol), Jeff Teunissen, 2003/10/24
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Adam Fedor, 2003/10/23
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Ian Jones, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Dennis Leeuw, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Adam Fedor, 2003/10/16
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation), Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf, 2003/10/17
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation),
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <=