On 28/04/06, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:51:48PM +0100, Ben Fowler wrote:
What do you mean by smoke testing?
By the way, for the former, there is now a `make check` capability that Jon Cruz, Mental, and others have worked on, that runs a sequence of unit tests. The coverage is far from 100%, but it runs quick, and it would be very appropriate to run as part of the "smoke testing".
That's right.
I've certainly found 'make check' useful on one occasion in the past. IMHO "unit tests" sometimes means different things to different people: I have heard it said that unit tests should be written to cover every tranche of new code; unti tests should be run (at 100% success) at every compile; unit tests should be run before check-in. Whilst there is such as thing as too much process, modern thinking is that unit testing - test infected - is the human readable term, is the way to provide an uptodate design, in the form of a living document.
Ideally, before putting out a build for testers, we ought to go one step further, and be sure that the build is good enough to warrant the time of another person, which is what I had in mind.
IMHO, if we do have people who are doing testing and nothing else, their names should be at the front of the Credits document, as these are the people to thank for the quality of Inkscape.
Ben