Re: Markup Validator Test Suite

* olivier Thereaux wrote:
>I was talking of the switch from the current routine-based "check" and 
>a modular validator. As far as I can tell, Test::Builder is more (only?)
>adapted to the latter.

That switch would obsolete any such efforts as a modular architecture
would be tested in the same way we currently test whether CGI.pm, etc
work as designed. I am concerned about a test suite that helps us with
getting 0.7.x, 0.8.x, and 0.9.x out of the door.

>In an ideal world bugs would not exist. In a cheaper version of that, 
>bugs would appear in one version, be spotted immediatly, fixed in CVS, 
>the new code released, end of the story. But in the real world where 
>you have trouble finding the origins of one bug, where bugs re-appear 
>across versions, where bugs take time to be discovered, I think it's 
>quite useful that one test could be ran not only on the latest dev 
>version, but on the current release as well, and on the one before that 
>too.

I am not sure why we would care about when specific bugs were introduced
which seems to be the only relevant issue here. Bugs would not re-appear
if the test suite covers them properly (and for that the requirement is
to be able to use the suite with *newer* versions, not older ones), and
yet untested bugs cannot be found using a test suite, so it does not
seem to be very relevant.

>> Human-testing only makes sense for things that would be difficult or
>> impossible to test using machine-based testing, this would be pretty
>> much limited to "does this work in all relevant browsers". Here I am
>> only concerned about machine-based testing.
>
>And I am concerned about testing in general, which is not incompatible.

It would prefer to keep these separate (in terms of threads on the list,
for example).

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 07:14:13 UTC