Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:30:45 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> > How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?
>
> We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
> mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
> Most of the code I worry about there isn't any simple way to
> test from the SQL level --- the fact that a query gives the
> right answer doesn't prove it went through a particular part
> of the planner, for example.

Well, that is covered in the system that I took that from. The full
description is;

1. Identify a bug or missing feature.
2. Write the test that proves the bug or missing feature.
3. Run the test to prove that it fails.
4. Code until the test passes and then stop.
5. Run the regression test to make sure you didn't break something.

Step 3. is the critical one from the point of view of your concern.
Having a test that can't fail is worse than no test.

This is taken from the principles of extreme programming.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.