Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: atf for libcurses

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 06:20:27PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> If the test expects cuf1;cuf1, and later somebody improves the curses
> library to emit "bc" or TAB instead, then the test would fail, but the
> actual change to the code would be an improvement, not a bug.
> I think everybody understands this, but some people draw the conclusion
> "therefore the tests should not be at this abstraction level", and other
> people draw the conclusion "therefore we will have to deal with updating
> the tests as the code changes".

It seems to me that we need *both* a specification for what the final result 
should be, as well as the details of how the terminal gets to that state.
If you know that the final result is identical, you can be more confident
in updating the the other part of the test as needed.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index