Re: RFC: Proposed new style for documenting and testing ZTK packages
Adam GROSZER <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Tres, Saturday, April 17, 2010, 3:41:02 AM, you wrote: TS> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TS> Hash: SHA1 <snip> +lots on more docs +lots on 100% coverage TS> The trickier testing bits we would re-write as super thorough, no TS> shortcuts-taken unit tests: one testcase class per class (or API TS> function) under test, at least one method per class-under-test method, TS> with more preferred to get all code paths / preconditions covered. The TS> goal here would be to comment out the doctests from the test_suites and TS> get the code to 100% coverage using pure unit tests. Meanwhile, the TS> doctests would be refactored into the Sphinx documentation, losing all TS> the bits which obscure their intent as documentation. I'm somewhat vary on unittests. I've seen some damn cryptic ones that took a lot of time to decipher. A doctest somehow forces you to dump your mind (well at least that, if we're not that brilliant techdoc writers). OTOH I think most unittests maybe have some comments, worst case they don't even use "speaking" variable names. I'm not sure whether we can enforce such rules (super thorough, no shortcuts-taken, well commented) if we can't easier ones. -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:[email protected] -- Quote of the day: You look tired _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )