Re: Outreachy project
Hi Joyce,
[I assume you are subscribed to the list and post to list only as per
list policy]
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:43:37PM -0700, jyzhou15 wrote:
> > I'd recommend to specifically read the thread with subject "Outreachy
> > current".
>
> Yep, I read through that thread (but unfortunately started setting up my VM
> before I got to Vagrant, oops. Thanks Liubov for sharing.
Finally you've learned some things:
1. Vagrant (same as I learned here)
2. This list is kind and helpful.
(Maybe / hopefully lesson 2. is even more important. ;-) )
> I'm not sure how to reply to two messages at once, but yep I'm on the
> other side of
> the date line. :)
:-)
> For sure! I want to check my understanding of a couple things.
>
> Looking through the unit tests in other packages, it looks like we are
> mostly testing
> that there is an output without error, and not that the output is
> necessarily "correct"
> (if that is even possible to test). Is this about right?
Not really. If we have access to "correct" test results comparing these
with our result should be part of the test. In other words: We test as
much as we can - but not more.
> I am also wondering about the tests template: seems like run-unit-tests contains
> multiple calls to the program combined (except in Saira's
> check-no-args test which
> tests a different kind of behavior).
I like this test as well since sometimes even that basic stuff is
failing. While the run-unit-tests has probably higher importance and
with the additional functionality to serve as user example, doing those
basic tests in addition does not harm at all.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: