So this is cool
-
I previously rebooted the documentation for GFX - index.md[^] What I didn't have were unit tests, for a number of reasons, chief among them I didn't know how to convince platformIO to use them, particularly in the somewhat complicated scenario I need them to work in (my library has dependencies of dependencies for example), but also because I had no CI/CD infrastructure to run them in the first place and it's already a ton of work to publish - begging the need for CI/CD. With *a lot* of help I got all of the above in place now, but I am stuck writing unit tests now. Since the library is already somewhat mature I have lot of ground to cover. It's hard to keep track. But wait! My documentation has a handy outline, aka a table of contents. There's the outline for my unit tests. Now I have something to go on. I can just write the tests following the documentation. That will at least cover the surface area of my code. It's not an especially clever thing, as clever things go, but it's saving me a ton of time, and getting my feet under me so yay. :-D
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Why are all my messages being flagged for review? I always follow the rules.
-
Why are all my messages being flagged for review? I always follow the rules.
9 messages and rep points of 719. not sure if that factors into the algorithm they use. you have been a member for 6+ years. I think after a certain level your messages aren't flagged anymore, but I could be mistaken.
-
Why are all my messages being flagged for review? I always follow the rules.
-
I previously rebooted the documentation for GFX - index.md[^] What I didn't have were unit tests, for a number of reasons, chief among them I didn't know how to convince platformIO to use them, particularly in the somewhat complicated scenario I need them to work in (my library has dependencies of dependencies for example), but also because I had no CI/CD infrastructure to run them in the first place and it's already a ton of work to publish - begging the need for CI/CD. With *a lot* of help I got all of the above in place now, but I am stuck writing unit tests now. Since the library is already somewhat mature I have lot of ground to cover. It's hard to keep track. But wait! My documentation has a handy outline, aka a table of contents. There's the outline for my unit tests. Now I have something to go on. I can just write the tests following the documentation. That will at least cover the surface area of my code. It's not an especially clever thing, as clever things go, but it's saving me a ton of time, and getting my feet under me so yay. :-D
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Hey Walt, It's great to see you again. You should ask a staff member to help you recover your old account[^]. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
I thought his name sounded familiar. Good catch.
-
Why are all my messages being flagged for review? I always follow the rules.
-
Documentation AND unit tests?!??!???? And you call yourself a developer!🤪
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
DRHuff wrote:
And you call yourself a developer!
Harrumph. Those of us who regularly and consistently document and test what we develop find it disheartening when the rest of you don't follow our example. Especially when we have to use your crap. :suss:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
DRHuff wrote:
And you call yourself a developer!
Harrumph. Those of us who regularly and consistently document and test what we develop find it disheartening when the rest of you don't follow our example. Especially when we have to use your crap. :suss:
Software Zen:
delete this;I don't know. I definitely appreciate unit testing, but I'll take a mature library if it's documented, even if the testing wasn't the most rigorous. "battle tested/field tested" counts for something, in my book. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's not nothing.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Why are all my messages being flagged for review? I always follow the rules.
Bob probably didn't like the cut of your jib and marked you for termination. ;P
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I don't know. I definitely appreciate unit testing, but I'll take a mature library if it's documented, even if the testing wasn't the most rigorous. "battle tested/field tested" counts for something, in my book. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's not nothing.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I agree with Honey somewhat. She is definitely a developer. If one's software is guiding a missile, flying an airplane, doing surgery, or powering a city, then rigorous unit testing is a requirement. If it's a library for open ended usage, then proper documentation and user feedback for bugs, etc. should be part of it. Much like open source, etc. Maturity is also a key factor. How long has it been used and what is its track record, etc. I've done a little of both. Validation and verification processes defined and executed when being actively used for work. Like factory inventory, bookkeeping, etc. Even the big companies fall on their faces if they do not do this. Read where big name car rental company caused people to be arrested and jailed because their software did not properly reconcile whether a car was lost or actually stolen. Yikes.
-
I agree with Honey somewhat. She is definitely a developer. If one's software is guiding a missile, flying an airplane, doing surgery, or powering a city, then rigorous unit testing is a requirement. If it's a library for open ended usage, then proper documentation and user feedback for bugs, etc. should be part of it. Much like open source, etc. Maturity is also a key factor. How long has it been used and what is its track record, etc. I've done a little of both. Validation and verification processes defined and executed when being actively used for work. Like factory inventory, bookkeeping, etc. Even the big companies fall on their faces if they do not do this. Read where big name car rental company caused people to be arrested and jailed because their software did not properly reconcile whether a car was lost or actually stolen. Yikes.
jmaida wrote:
their software did not properly reconcile whether a car was lost or actually stolen. Yikes.
Yikes indeed! I totally agree with all of what you said in your post above. I guess I just didn't really kick it around much before I posted. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
jmaida wrote:
their software did not properly reconcile whether a car was lost or actually stolen. Yikes.
Yikes indeed! I totally agree with all of what you said in your post above. I guess I just didn't really kick it around much before I posted. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
DRHuff wrote:
And you call yourself a developer!
Harrumph. Those of us who regularly and consistently document and test what we develop find it disheartening when the rest of you don't follow our example. Especially when we have to use your crap. :suss:
Software Zen:
delete this;Hold on, you mean to say you read documentation? And you call yourself a developer!? :laugh: Remember, a few hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading documentation.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Hold on, you mean to say you read documentation? And you call yourself a developer!? :laugh: Remember, a few hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading documentation.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Sander Rossel wrote:
you read documentation
Both read and write documentation.
Software Zen:
delete this;
