[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
From: |
Neil Puttock |
Subject: |
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708 |
Date: |
Tue, 26 May 2009 22:55:28 +0100 |
2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden>:
> On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check
> convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as
> far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly
> regression tests?
I'm not sure how that would work. Convert rules are unlikely to break
unless there are drastic changes between Python versions, so I think
the best option is to keep each rule as specific as possible and test
it thoroughly before it's committed.
Regards,
Neil
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, (continued)
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Neil Puttock, 2009/05/24
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/05/24
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Graham Percival, 2009/05/24
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Andrew Hawryluk, 2009/05/25
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Neil Puttock, 2009/05/26
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/05/27
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708,
Neil Puttock <=
- Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708, Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/05/27