You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/08 08:58:24 UTC
Tests for Original API
I've created a new Jira item
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
wouldn't be broken by code changes.
D.
Re: Tests for Original API
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
That's fair enough. One interesting thing to note about APIs though,
is that in some sense any change to them is a bug. So even if we fix a
deeper bug within ESME, which causes the API to start behaving
"correctly", it still has significant potential to break clients that
have come to depend on the incorrect behavior.
This is not to say that we should not fix issues. In fact, often times
it makes very good sense to break clients. Often the clients should
have been designed more robustly, only used documented interfaces, or
maybe it is just worth it to break even good clients for some
improvements.
Just something to keep in mind.
Ethan
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My idea is that through testing the old API, I will expose bugs that
> may be present at a deeper level (thus, having an impact on various
> APIs and the UI). If I can expose old API bugs that are restricted to
> this API, this is an unintended - but welcome - side effect.
>
> The one change I made to the old API was to fix a bug that I already
> knew about. I realized that tests would have exposed it much earlier
> and thus decided to write more tests.
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm jumping for joy about the tests. :-) More failing tests and Jira
>> items means more bugs that we *know* about. But the same number of
>> bugs overall. So the more bugs we find and write tests for, the
>> happier I am! :-)
>>
>> So, one question I had here based on your latest commit, was if we are
>> fixing old bugs in the old API. My impression was that your bug fix
>> was to fix a new bug, and the un-noticed appearance of this bug
>> motivated you to start writing tests?
>>
>> Ethan
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be jumping for joy yet.
>>>
>>> I love negative tests / finding bugs = lots of Jira items :->
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yay! Excellent!
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've created a new Jira item
>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
>>>>> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
>>>>> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
>>>>> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
>>>>> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
>>>>> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
>>>>> wouldn't be broken by code changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> D.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Tests for Original API
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
My idea is that through testing the old API, I will expose bugs that
may be present at a deeper level (thus, having an impact on various
APIs and the UI). If I can expose old API bugs that are restricted to
this API, this is an unintended - but welcome - side effect.
The one change I made to the old API was to fix a bug that I already
knew about. I realized that tests would have exposed it much earlier
and thus decided to write more tests.
D.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm jumping for joy about the tests. :-) More failing tests and Jira
> items means more bugs that we *know* about. But the same number of
> bugs overall. So the more bugs we find and write tests for, the
> happier I am! :-)
>
> So, one question I had here based on your latest commit, was if we are
> fixing old bugs in the old API. My impression was that your bug fix
> was to fix a new bug, and the un-noticed appearance of this bug
> motivated you to start writing tests?
>
> Ethan
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be jumping for joy yet.
>>
>> I love negative tests / finding bugs = lots of Jira items :->
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yay! Excellent!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've created a new Jira item
>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
>>>> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
>>>> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
>>>> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
>>>> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
>>>> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
>>>> wouldn't be broken by code changes.
>>>>
>>>> D.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Tests for Original API
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
I'm jumping for joy about the tests. :-) More failing tests and Jira
items means more bugs that we *know* about. But the same number of
bugs overall. So the more bugs we find and write tests for, the
happier I am! :-)
So, one question I had here based on your latest commit, was if we are
fixing old bugs in the old API. My impression was that your bug fix
was to fix a new bug, and the un-noticed appearance of this bug
motivated you to start writing tests?
Ethan
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't be jumping for joy yet.
>
> I love negative tests / finding bugs = lots of Jira items :->
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yay! Excellent!
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've created a new Jira item
>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
>>> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
>>> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
>>> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
>>> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
>>> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
>>> wouldn't be broken by code changes.
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>
>
Re: Tests for Original API
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
I wouldn't be jumping for joy yet.
I love negative tests / finding bugs = lots of Jira items :->
D.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yay! Excellent!
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've created a new Jira item
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
>> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
>> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
>> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
>> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
>> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
>> wouldn't be broken by code changes.
>>
>> D.
>>
>
Re: Tests for Original API
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
Yay! Excellent!
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've created a new Jira item
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-153) for testing the old
> API. I've also committed an initial set of tests. As we move towards
> our first release, we have to make sure that the core functionality is
> stable. We've never really tested possible inputs (puncution,
> numbers, etc) for actions, tracks, etc and I'm now using the old API
> to do this. This will also assure that "legacy" apps that use this API
> wouldn't be broken by code changes.
>
> D.
>