Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] test-suite as bug-base?

Expand Messages
  • yahoogroups@jhrothjr.com
    ... From: Craig Pardey To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 349 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Craig Pardey"
      <pardeyc.at.stgeorge.com.au@...>
      To: "extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com"
      <extremeprogramming.at.yahoogroups.com@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [XP] test-suite as bug-base?


      >
      > >> Another way of doing this is to create the failing test case but attach
      >> it to the Bugzilla issue instead of including it in the codebase.
      >
      > >I would avoid seperating tests from the codebase at all costs.
      >
      > <snip>
      >
      > >Its difficult to refactor code if you have to hunt both locally and over
      > >there in bugzilla for all callers of a method.
      >
      > I don't think I properly conveyed my point. Let me try again.
      >
      > What I meant was to put the failing test case in Bugzilla against the
      > bug report until somebody is ready to work on it. Once a developer
      > begins fixing the bug, they move the failing test case into their
      > copy of the codebase and it gets checked in with the bug fix, hence
      > it becomes part of the codebase.

      I don't think I'd do that. What I suspect I'd do if I had enough
      bugs to matter is create a section of my acceptance/unit test
      procedure for known defects; that is, tests that are known to
      fail currently. Then I could monitor if their status changes for
      any reason.

      If I put them in a bug base, by the time I get to them the
      code base may have changed under them and I'd have to
      go back through the debugging process again to find out if
      it was even a current issue.

      John Roth
      >
      >
      > **********************************************************************
      > ***** IMPORTANT INFORMATION *****
      > This document should be read only by those persons to whom
      > it is addressed and its content is not intended for use by
      > any other persons. If you have received this message in
      > error, please notify us immediately. Please also destroy and
      > delete the message from your computer. Any unauthorised form
      > of reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited.
      > St.George is not liable for the proper and complete transmission
      > of the information contained in this communication, nor for any
      > delay in its receipt.
      > **********************************************************************
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... There is a big difference between rational and Rational . ;- Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Example isn t another way to teach, it is the only way
      Message 349 of 349 , May 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 6:41:46 PM, Edmund Schweppe wrote:

        > Ron Jeffries wrote:
        >> On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 12:26:22 PM, George Paci wrote:
        >> > Note that, on the substantive points, I basically agree with you.
        >> Well, as any rational man would ... ;->

        > Who here besides Grady Booch is a Rational man? :-)

        There is a big difference between "rational" and "Rational". ;->

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach. --Albert Einstein
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.