From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 461723664384 X-Google-Groups: supmua X-Google-Thread: 3030fda1bf,dd49f73ce9d462ba X-Google-Attributes: gid3030fda1bf,domainid0,public,googlegroup X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Received: by 10.152.44.225 with SMTP id h1mr6100309lam.2.1419789588979; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: supmua@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.79.74 with SMTP id h10ls1500412wix.37.canary; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.77.167 with SMTP id t7mr5421644wiw.6.1419789588699; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com. [209.85.212.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d18si281935wiv.0.2014.12.28.09.59.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: none (google.com: eg@gaute.vetsj.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=209.85.212.179; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=none (google.com: eg@gaute.vetsj.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=eg@gaute.vetsj.com Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ex7so20418327wid.6 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :user-agent:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wxGDlEyGJecmnZX5q495W3U4fpTBWPt6xCwTZgle1Gc=; b=jAOGLgGbRmRA2YU/yt/s57zJIhdYr1rLfwSMRnwtEvVCuzkU6WwAfM4Vosqr3PMbca U3ZBnQpuUuHprhTANxczxIWsbCjt++xwWNgc2iGIWnNn/jdauT97emHHkQmMytcwpEf8 Qq67Q3CUgwNo6eAHm/TcF38843t02WpUndl6exWL/HaPIBNoZH9iPPUleOsl8Ge26nVE 4xA3atmRYSvutw2cLU0E6SLk/zC+OLCnwpC1L+dXShZzvIV2r9zxTh24ukMbclOOCcF0 NeHkyK5ZqduJ1+0PB9b1JIXi8CroYn3DALpPJ2sTLcxShErzIy/kpGovkmsKLyoEx1yZ cfjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl33BZzvuIbydBx72/V01sOqrL8U8VdO9gU/ORmn5R/9T0NiqMRd9JvUwf4QiC55ggqMeEd X-Received: by 10.180.107.228 with SMTP id hf4mr70575199wib.47.1419789587980; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:47 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from localhost (216.89-20-249.enivest.net. [89.20.249.216]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cy3sm1931438wjb.22.2014.12.28.09.59.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:59:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:00:09 +0000 From: Gaute Hope Subject: Re: [sup] papercuts and google code-in To: Martin =?iso-8859-1?b?QuRocg==?= Cc: supmua References: <1419701714-sup-6215@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> <1419775872-astroid-4-gk0eja34lo-1194@strange> <1419782945-sup-3956@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> <1419786092-astroid-5-92dov2kfj7-1194@strange> <1419787476-sup-5076@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <1419787476-sup-5076@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> User-Agent: astroid/vv0.1-42-ge9d4344b (https://github.com/gauteh/astroid) Message-Id: <1419789553-astroid-1-sqxbofp9kf-7135@strange> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Excerpts from Martin B=C3=A4hr's message of December 28, 2014 18:31: > Excerpts from Gaute Hope's message of 2014-12-28 18:06:10 +0100: >> > though i'd appreciate a little help in reviewing pull-requests, at lea= st in >> > terms of deciding whether they are good enough for merging. in particu= lar i am >> > inexperienced in dealing with test-cases, and it would be nice if you = could >> > indicate if an issue should have a test case or not. or point out what= to test for. >> Yep, I can probably help a bit out there - though my time is limited. >> Make sure that the code is tested by both the author and at least one >> other (you?). >=20 > yes, that's sensible. >=20 >> E.g. #358 is difficult to write a test case for, but you >> need to test how it works with: >>=20 >> - no .sup dir >> - a previous config.yml but no sources.yml >> - both existing, but perhaps sources empty. >=20 > great, that sort of detail is very helpful. thanks! >=20 >> indicate in the PR if you have tested it and what your recommendation is= . >=20 >> #357 does not need a test case, but I am not sure it is more accurate >> now than before - please see my comment there. >=20 > hehe, yeah, changing "found" to "loaded" was idea nr 44. adding a count i= s idea nr 45 :-) >=20 > the thing that irked me with "found" was that it suggested that there are= no more threads. > "loaded" is just a statement of fact without that suggestion. Ok, sounds good - I think with both 44 and 45 merged together it would be good :) - gaute =