On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:18, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring all tests to be doctests.
If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be somewhat looser than mandating a particular test/doc framework (something along the lines of "must have good test coverage and appropriate narrative documentation", maybe with examples of what this means that could be in doctest format by default). Would that be acceptable?
If there is enough outcry by developers, then yes. ;-) The problem is that it becomes hard to verify that documentation does not deteriorate over time. That means we need certification manager overhead to check that; and it would actually be a difficult task. With doctests I can at least force the developer to update the documentation examples, and if s/he is interested in his package at all, s/he will update the text around it as well. BTW, I have no problem to make the requirements tool independent. I could do the following changes: Doctest-based Testing --> Documentation-based Testing Actually I just did. Maybe I should also change:: Minimal Documentation --> Minimal, Testable Documentation Complete Documentation --> Complete, Testable Documentation Mmmh, now that I look at the matrix, I really think I should have a small explanatory snippet for each metric (below the matrix). Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training