Am Donnerstag, 28. November 2013 schrieb Josef Reidinger:
I hope that in future we can more focus on automatic
of results, then on manual review of source code changes.
<corporate>Because results matter</corporate> :)
I have to disagree ;-)
I'm fine with adding automatic testing, but the manual code review
should stay in place.
A good example would be code like
test "$USER" == 'jreidinger' && rm -fr ~jreidinger
If something like this is added, a human reviewer will easily notice it.
However, the automatic test (which is running as a different user and
therefore skips the rm command) will tell you:
Test succeeded - everything is fine!
Results matter, right? ;-)
Another example where reading the code is the better choice are changes
in rarely used code paths - it happened to me more than once that I
found interesting[tm] (and buggy) code when reading the sources of
various programs. Sometimes those code sections were "hidden" from most
users, for example in an error handling section or in code that only 1%
of the users use.
It might be possible to write tests for the "only used by 1% of the
users" code, but testing all error handling (and reproducing the errors
to trigger this code path) is probably harder than proofreading the
source code ;-)
I've already burnt my fingers with upstream patches ... now let's see
whats happen and let's wait that my fingers will cool down.
[Werner Fink in https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752422
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org