|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
CChris wrote:
> PS: Looks like a test for the tests is needed 
Well, about unit testing. When the author writes a new function, he/she writes
a tests to ensure it's working like they think it should. If a change is made
and that test no longer works, then it should be assumed that since it's in
the repo that the author gave it's functionality his/her stamp of approval.
So, that means that it's working according to their spec of how it should work.
Now, as you found in a couple of places, maybe their spec was wrong. If you
think it was but are unsure, then you should contact them about it and ask,
why is it doing it like this. In a few today that you found, it was clear the
spec (or name) was a tad off, so fixing it is good.
So, I do not think a test needs to be made for the tests, we just need to ensure
that the tests are run and continue to pass and if not, figure out why. For
instance, right now the document generation uses the new 4.0 stack (it is, after
all the 4.0 doc generator). Luckily it uses the FILO stack, otherwise, CK lester
would have been out of business today because the stack is broke.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com