Re: [PATCH] Generated SBuf::find() test cases

On 27/02/2013 11:13 a.m., Kinkie wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> I think we have been talking at cross-purposes here a bit. I am thinking the
>> improved version will be very similar to this with better coverage.
>>
>> So, in the interest of progress I'm going to say +1 if kinkie wants to
>> absorb it and fix the things it finds, and I can point out more improvements
>> to do _on top_ of this to massage it towards that better coverage.
> Hi,
> Day-job is absorbing all of my time and energies currently, so I
> haven't had the time to read the patch yet.
> Short story, I'll incorporate it.

I've applied it to me checkout of stringng and am hitting build errors.
Will see what I can do about that and post an update hopefully later today..

... unless you are able to post one Alex?

> I believe it shouldn't replace the current hand-crafted tests, but
> complement them. While the purpose of automated and manually-crafted
> tests is largely overlapping, it is not completely so.
> Hand-crafted is better than automated as an easily-readable example
> and documentation; automated can give better coverage, can help with
> corner cases such as junk/malicious input and (unless we get too
> carried away) trades CPU time at build/test for developer time. The
> former we have plenty of, the latter we should spare whenever
> possible.
>
> Amos, +1 for the "on top" coverage improvements; your choice whether
> to give them now wait until the first round is done.

Either way. Lets see what our availablility permits to happen.

> Alex, thank you very much for taking the time to work on this and
> carry it so far.

Ditto.

Ams
Received on Tue Feb 26 2013 - 22:56:52 MST