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

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin Schröder <
martin.schroeder at nerdluecht.de> wrote:

> Is that really a good thing?
>

Yes. We already have plenty of evidence that we are not able to come up
with perverse enough corner cases.

This is a common shortcoming of unit tests in all situations, so "just try
harder" isn't a good response.


> 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.
>

This isn't an either/or thing. Adrian already put together a large set of
encoding regression tests. If we discover bugs in the future due to
randomized testing, we can add those specific cases to the regression suite.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20121114/2131bac9/attachment.html>