Re: [PEAR-QA] BC, testing, BBC

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:59:19 +0100, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote:
> Hello back Justin,
>
>
> Justin Patrin wrote:
> 
> 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