Re: BC, testing, BBC

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:59:19 +0100, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote: > Hello back Justin, > > > Justin Patrin wrote: > > >On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:46:42 +0100, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Hello, > >>1. aim of testing is BC (Backwards Compatibility). > >>That's what is lovely in PHP, Pear & friends. > >>Testing and again ensure BC: "I still can run the same cases the same". > >> > >>BC is granite, > >>somehow stable in cool environments, > >>somewhat fused in hot developing periods. > >>so must admit some BBC: Break Backwards Compatibility. > >>BBC is a disaster for (package) trusters. > >> > >>2. aim likely for testing: provide hints about BBC. > >>If BC is broken, up to the tests to show how come over. > >> > >> > >> > > > >I'm sorry? Is this supposed to be informational? Are you asking for > >help? I can't understand what this e-mail is supposed to be saying. > > > > > > > Must QA be only informational? perhaps I misunderstand the list's > subject again. > I post here because "pear run-test" belongs somehow to QA as > http://qa.php.net/write-test.php > and more generaly, I mean QA is involved in testing tools > (not in the testing themselves) > > I don't ask for help, my very discussion here is: > Testing ensure BC, > case BC must be broken (for any good reason), > testing should furnish some hints about how adapt the scripts to be BC > again. > (e.g. test scripts must adapt themselves when BBC, so they know how to > do that) > > The target of discussion should certainly land in some other list, as > dev, I agree. > Requiring improvments in "pear run-test". > Again, I don't understand your point. Of course tests are meant to test BC (as well as just testing correct functioning). BC is never supposed to be broken except in very few cisrumstances (huge security hole, major version # update, etc.). When the package breaks BC on purpose, yes the tests have to eb changed. When new functionality is added, tests should be added. What are you trying to say? What is this discussion supposed to be about? Do you have a problem with some of the current tests? Are you trying to start a testing RFC? -- Justin Patrin