Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-cvs] CVS Update: reactos

[Alex Ionescu]

Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> > Sent: 24. oktober 2004 22:29
> > To: ReactOS Development List
> > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-cvs] CVS Update: reactos
> >
> > Filip Navara wrote:
> > > Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I can't say I'm terribly overjoyed with having the /tests
> >
> > directory
> > > > in /ntoskrnl. Would it be possible instead to have a
> >
> > /tests root (on
> > > > the new SVN server) where all the tests would go? like 
> > > > /tests/ntoskrnl, /tests/kmregtests etc...
> > > >
> > > > I think it would make it a bit clearer...it just bugs me to have 
> > > > /tests in ntoskrnl.
> > >
> > > I'm personally quite happy with having tests as near as possible to 
> > > the respective component. Wine does that for years and it
> >
> > works very
> > > well...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Filip
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > How is /tests/ntoskrnl not near? You have to remember that 
> > not everyone wants to download the tests simply for building 
> > the core kernel, or even wait for them to be compiled. Part 
> > of the new directory structure that we are working on is 
> > exactly to ease down the bandwidth for developers or users 
> > who only want the kernel. They shouldn't be bothered with an 
> > obligatory test sub-directory (ie, this is also the reason 
> > Steven removed apps/tests). The advantage of the SVN tree 
> > will be that the /tests directory will have its own 
> > repository but still be included of a master 
> > repository/makefile for those who wish to have it all.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
>
> I feel really bad about you not considering tests as important
> as "normal" code. I'm convinced that Extreme Programming (XP)
> is the methodology for us to use and I'm set out to prove it.
> XP is very good for high risk dynamic projects with varying
> resources and this is exactly what ReactOS is.
>
> If you are making a distribution and does not even bother to
> run the tests before packaging it, why bother release the
> possibly broken package then? If you are just monitoring
> development why don't you just download one of the pre-built
> packages? If you are a developer why wouldn't you want to run
> the tests before a commit to make sure you didn't break
> anything?
>
> I want to make the tests an integral part of ReactOS
> development. Not something that is just there because
> then we can say we have tests for our software. So my
> requirements are that running tests should be easy. You
> write a test, then you write the domain code (the code
> being tested) and finally you run the tests to make sure that
> the domain code works as expected. There is no need to boot
> ReactOS (in a VM or whatever) during this process so the
> process is fast compared to booting ReactOS in order to test
> every little change. Then you do it again and again until you
> are satisfied with the result. Now you boot ReactOS and make
> sure that it behaves as expected. If it does what you expect
> it to then commit and go back to the first step otherwise just
> go back to the first step.
>
> See http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ for more information.
>
> Casper
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Casper,

I will be one of the first people to stand up in line and yell "we need 
tests", and I strongly agree with all your points, but you misunderstood 
mine.

My points were:
1) It is, in my opinion, cleaner to have a tests directory separate 
(This doesn't mean optional or not included or whatever, it will work 
the same way as you said). This is personal choice and debatable.
2) It is, factually, adding to the ReactOS direcotry what ****USERS**** 
will consider as junk. I run multiple programs from CVS, where I just 
build them. But I am not a developer for those projects. Nothing bugs me 
more then downloading 15MB worth of CVS files out of which only 4MB are 
source code and the other 11MB are stuff only the devs would want/need.

What I meant by "unnormal" code was code that is not part of the React 
Operating System. I didn't mean it as not part of the ReactOS Project. 
By not part of, I mean that it doesn't export or provide any functions 
that are compiled into the system. That's all.

So so reiterate, I have nothing against XP and I think tests are very 
valuable. I was just giving my opinion that I think they are in the 
wrong place.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu