|
From: | Mario Frasca |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] may we focus on readability? |
Date: | Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:52:11 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 |
second thought about testing:if I did that, it would become longer than 15 lines, I would need refactoring quite a bit of stuff, and both things would require time, bureaucratic time, and programming time.
I had a closer look at my changes, re-read it, and used it a bit, and I think this is o.k.
see it yourself, when we have the agreement allowing you accept changes longer than 15 lines, I'll consider the needed refactoring and test-writing.
ciao, Mario On 15/06/2020 09:49, Mario Frasca wrote:
Hi Nicolas, I think that the hint on testing is very correct, I'm afraid I changed the semantics of one of the original tests, and I found that there's other cl functions other than just cl-some, also cl-every, cl-notevery, and cl-notany. I'll have a closer look at this. and write some tests before changing the code.I also looked for the strange idiom used here, and these two are the only two locations I found.how do I run tests from the command line (I'm using make test) but then limited to one lisp file? or one specific test?ciao, Mario On 14/06/2020 14:32, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:[…] Also, further nit: (not (cl-every ...)) will apply `not' only once. In any case, it would be better if refactoring happens while introducing unit tests *hint*. Regards,
0001-lisp-org-plot.el-reducing-complexity-of-test.patch
Description: Text Data
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |