[aerogear-dev] Providing Tests with PR's

[Sebastien Blanc]

In 1 word : test but be pragmatic !

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:

>  +1
>
> Not only for JS libs.
>
>
> --
> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
> -
> @abstractj
> -
> Volenti Nihil Difficile
>
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
>
> I want to throw this out to the list for feedback. Something we have been
> doing for a while now with the jQuery project is to require a unit test(s)
> for any PR or change committed. This has worked very well in two ways.
> First, it provides a built in way to see the issue being fixed/implemented
> within the PR. That way, the reviewer doesn't have to build their own
> test(s) to see if the issue being addressed is actually fixed. Second, it
> helps prevent regressions down the road since more of the code is covered
> by tests so you know if some change you think is unrelated breaks something
> that fixed days, weeks, years ago.
>
> I would like to suggest we make this policy for at least the JS library
> (since that is the one I review most often) but I believe this policy would
> be useful across the entire project. Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Kris
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130131/7381db80/attachment.html