Message129615
> OK, but acceptance tests do not need to not try to get higher test coverage.
>For instance, for testing disable() simply using it and making sure the outcome
>is as expected also works.
>
> I can understand wanting to avoid some low-level whitebox testing, but I don't
>think that precludes getting better coverage results.
Well then, it sounds like we're on the same page. I'm not arguing against better
coverage, just against the low-level whitebox testing elements of Oliver's
patch. He did welcome comments, after all :-) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-02-27 08:04:22 | vinay.sajip | set | recipients:
+ vinay.sajip, brett.cannon, drakeol |
2011-02-27 08:04:21 | vinay.sajip | link | issue11332 messages |
2011-02-27 08:04:21 | vinay.sajip | create | |
|