[vtk-developers] testsetget/emptyinput etc

[David E DeMarle]

Thanks.

I'm looking for more details.

Specifically why is it a bad thing when each of our specific smoke tests
fail on some new code and when exceptions for that test are acceptable.
 On Sep 28, 2012 4:26 PM, "Bill Lorensen" <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> "Ancient ones"?  We prefer "Wise ones"...
>
> These are smoke tests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_testing
>  to blinding test basic functionality. They certainly matter.
>
> For example SetGet tests ensure that a variable can be set  and retrieved.
> In the past we had tests that ensured that if a variable was changed, the
> class' modified time changed. Or, can a class print itself after
> instantiation.
>
> Bill
>
> Sep 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David E DeMarle <dave.demarle at kitware.com> wrote:
>
>> Could one of the ancient* ones on the list explain the rationale
>> behind these and the other old tcl style tests?
>>
>> They are failing now in some of the new classes that were
>> added/changed during the big test downtime that started when
>> modularization went in. Before I get deep into the job of fixing them
>> (or convincing the responsible parties that they should), I'ld like to
>> know if and why they matter.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> *I'm not mentioning any names here Will.
>>
>> David E DeMarle
>> Kitware, Inc.
>> R&D Engineer
>> 21 Corporate Drive
>> Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662
>> Phone: 518-881-4909David E DeMarle
>> _______________________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20120928/7f03376d/attachment.html>