[PATCH 1 of 8] tests: add a randomized test for pathencode

Kevin Bullock kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org
Wed Nov 14 16:54:24 CST 2012


On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Martin Schröder wrote:

> Am 13.11.2012 23:00, schrieb Bryan O'Sullivan:
>> This is a probabilistic test - it generates different test cases on every
>> run, unless invoked from the command line with a specific seed.
> 
> Is that really a good thing? While covering many test cases in the long
> run, it is not deterministic. A test might fail in one case and succeed
> in another.
> 
> I understand that once a run failed, one could test the failing seed
> explicit in future runs, but I think good code coverage in the first
> place would be better.

Given the time it already takes to run the test suite, I think it's an acceptable trade-off, provided that we guard against known regressions, as you suggest.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20121114/c62e0eef/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list