This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: Change rules for adding/changing test cases

> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:21:31 -0500
> From: DJ Delorie <>
> To:

> to new chips, I would like to propose changing the rules for
> approving new test cases and maintaining old ones as follows:

>   All test cases must have comments indicating what type of failure
>   they are testing (i.e. the conditions that indicated the need for a
>   test case, location of the abort, whatever), and when fixed,
>   comments indicating what/how it was fixed.

:-( I don't think I favor this...  If you want to mandate something,
mandate that the testcase be checked in simultaneously with the work
that fixes it, and that the changelog entry for the work mentions the
testcase by name, the target on which it was verified, and mentions
the bug id in the database.  Mandate that the testcase be run once
before the fix, and verified that it shows a failure, and once after
the fix and that it shows a pass.

Having this pointer is better and more useful.  The Changelog entry
should cover some of the above.  I audited the current Changelog, and
there are very few such entries.  We should first mandate them.

Without a compelling benefit, I don't think we should force this on
people, as it would tend to discourage testcase creation, which would
be bad.  The PR can contain unlimited verbiage about the testcase.
The changelog stiches the testcases to the PRs, thus linking the code,
the documentation in the code, the verbiage in the PR, and the
testcase in the testsuite.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]