Remove "unit test needed"
Hello, I would like to see “unit test needed” removed from the workflow menu in the bug tracker. The reason is that we don't do test-driven development (or, at least, most of us don't) and this stage entry is therefore useless and confusing. Saying to someone that an unit test is needed happens during the patch review - it isn't a separate stage in itself. The reason I'm asking is that I've seen some triagers bumping a lot of issues to “unit test needed” lately, and I find this annoying. What we need is patches, not unit tests per se. Regards Antoine.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Hello,
I would like to see “unit test needed” removed from the workflow menu in the bug tracker. The reason is that we don't do test-driven development (or, at least, most of us don't) and this stage entry is therefore useless and confusing. Saying to someone that an unit test is needed happens during the patch review - it isn't a separate stage in itself.
Is that stage supposed to (at least partly) capture the idea 'reproducible test-case needed', or 'verification needed'? That would seem like a more useful notion. Mark
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: ..
I would like to see “unit test needed” removed from the workflow menu in the bug tracker. .. Is that stage supposed to (at least partly) capture the idea 'reproducible test-case needed', or 'verification needed'? That would seem like a more useful notion.
+1 I have two problems with “unit test needed”: 1. Similar to Antoine, I find it ambiguous whether a bug without a patch is in “unit test needed” or "patch needed" stage. 2. I much prefer a small script reproducing the bug to a regression suite patch. In most cases unit tests require too much irrelevant scaffolding to be useful in understanding or debugging the issue. I remember there was an idea somewhere to replace "patch" tag with a check-list with boxes for code, tests, and docs. I think that would be better than "unit test needed" stage.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember there was an idea somewhere to replace "patch" tag with a check-list with boxes for code, tests, and docs. I think that would be better than "unit test needed" stage.
Are you suggesting check boxes for what's needed, or for what's present? Boxes indicating the needs would probably be most useful. These should probably all be set by default on new issues. Using keywords would be acceptable, I think. Similar to "needs review". -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Fred Drake <fdrake@acm.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember there was an idea somewhere to replace "patch" tag with a check-list with boxes for code, tests, and docs. I think that would be better than "unit test needed" stage.
Are you suggesting check boxes for what's needed, or for what's present?
Please see http://wiki.python.org/moin/DesiredTrackerFeatures . Ezio, thanks for the link.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:02:29 -0400 Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember there was an idea somewhere to replace "patch" tag with a check-list with boxes for code, tests, and docs. I think that would be better than "unit test needed" stage.
To me the simpler the better. If there's a patch then it's the reviewer's task to point out what's missing - and that's context-dependent: some fixes don't need a doc change or a test case (or, at least, they can do without). The rationale is that the more complex a system is, the less likely we are to use it. Our current "keywords" are severely under-used. Regards Antoine.
On 12/08/2010 12:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I would like to see “unit test needed” removed from the workflow menu in the bug tracker. The reason is that we don't do test-driven development (or, at least, most of us don't) and this stage entry is therefore useless and confusing. Saying to someone that an unit test is needed happens during the patch review - it isn't a separate stage in itself.
The reason I'm asking is that I've seen some triagers bumping a lot of issues to “unit test needed” lately, and I find this annoying. What we need is patches, not unit tests per se.
I often see patches without a test, and have assumed this is what this stage is for - where a patch is provided without a corresponding test. On the other hand checkboxes for fix / test / docs sounds fine. Michael
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.u...
-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
participants (5)
-
Alexander Belopolsky -
Antoine Pitrou -
Fred Drake -
Mark Dickinson -
Michael Foord