2009/11/12 Ralph Johnson <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu>:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Testing against virtually every existing application is unreasonable
>> demand and nobody having time to do that.
>
> But did you run it against the standard set of tests in Squeak?
>
> The question is whether changing the behavior of Set will break the
> image.   And if it does, how hard will it be to fix? i can't remember
> ever reading or writing code that would break if Sets could include
> nil, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.  The whole reason for
> having these tests is so we can see if changes break something.  But
> if we don't run the tests then they don't do us any good.
>
> Since there are no unit tests that ensure that Sets never contain nil,
> it should not be hard to make a version of Set that can contain nil.
> That is why I said it was boring and obvious to say that your version
> of Set plassed the unit tests for Collections.
>
oh.. i thought you said about that boring to see 1 failed test :)

Sure, it needs to be tested by all tests which shipped with image.

> I loaded the changes into Squeak 10.2.  First, I ran the tests; two
> failed.  Then I loaded the new version of Set and ran the tests again.
>  Now only one failed, an obscure unwind error that has been around a
> long time.  So, your change doesn't break any of the 2254 tests in
> that image.  it probably wouldn't be hard to test it with squeak-dev,
> too.
>

it could be because my changeset version based on current trunk
version of Set, which
already contains refactorings comparing to 10.2.
So, loading it into 3.10.2 may even crash the whole system.

> It is not hard to run all the tests.  Sure, it takes a little time,
> but you can run them in the background and go read your e-mail.  But
> just running the collection tests doesn't mean much, since getting the
> collection tests to run is easy so telling us that they work doesn't
> tell us much.
>

I just finished running tests on just-updated-from-trunk image i'm
using for development:
2524 run, 2466 passes, 0 expected failures, 40 failures, 18 errors, 0
unexpected passes

.. it might be better to do a clean-room test, because my code, which
is unrelated to sets, but still might break something occasionally.
Will report back later.

> -Ralph
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.