[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Vetoing commits

Josh>Shutting down and saying "I'm
Josh>not interacting with this more" is equivalent in my eyes to saying
Josh>withdrawing my veto".

This is exactly the reason I continue with the discussion even after I say
I do not want to spend time on the issue.

Of course, this thread is a great waste of time for everybody involved, yet
I do find (1) and (2) (at the start of the thread) interesting and
important questions.

Josh>That doesn't mean you can stop CALCITE-2438 from happening meanwhile

Of course I can't.

What was the better way to indicate that "changes to core functionality
requires tests"? All the added tests cover just positive scenarios.
What was the better way to indicate that "error messages should explain the
nature of the failure"? If course it might be not required at all (e.g.
when test has single assertion, and the name of the tests is meaningful),
however 2348 includes multiple asserts in a single test method, so it is
important to know which failed.

Should have I said "+1, but please add negative tests and add appropriate
error messages"?