Re: [lmi] wx_test_default_update.cpp

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:17:20 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> I have one concern, though. "MEC avoidance" might not be the
GC> second item on the first tab. For example, it is not so in
GC> 'skin_group_carveout.xrc'; we do test distributions that use
GC> that skin, in which case I suspect the test won't succeed.
GC> And of course we might change the layout of other skins in
GC> the future. Is it really onerous to search for this control's
GC> location across all tabs?

 I've implemented the function doing just this now and was testing using it
in this test as well as in the input sequences one, where the same problem
arose with the "Specified amount" and, as part of this testing, I found
that this part of the specification comment

/// Change its "MEC avoidance" option. This particular option is used
/// because it is available for almost any life insurance product.

was indeed to be taken literally, i.e. "almost any" doesn't mean "all".
To be precise, the "MEC Avoidance" radio box appears only in 5 out of 7
skin files present in the sources, so, as written, the test would fail if
single premium or variable annuity skins are used.

 Of course, this might not be a problem at all if distribution-specific
tests (of which this is one) are only supposed to be run with other skins.
But if these MEC-avoidance-less skins can be used, what should be done
about them? Should I follow this advice

GC> ...so whenever an individual sequence-paste test cannot be run because
GC> of these reasons, I believe we should skip it silently. (It's not
GC> actually interesting to report that it was skipped.)

(from http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lmi/2014-12/msg00064.html)?

 I am not sure if it makes sense here, especially when we don't really care
about "MEC Avoidance" at all here, we just want to change any option. So
maybe the code should just change the selection in the first check/radio
box we find instead of hunting for a particular option?

 Or, to make the test more predictable, take one of the options that are
really present in all skins? Looking at the skins in the sources (I'd paste
my "one"-line using sed and 7 invocations of "comm -12" to compute the
intersection here, but I'm afraid this email is too small for it to fit)
only the following fields occur in all the skins:

        AgentAddress
        AgentCity
        AgentName
        AgentState
        AgentZipCode
        Comments
        DateOfBirth
        EffectiveDate
        External1035ExchangeAmount
        External1035ExchangeTaxBasis
        InsuredName
        Internal1035ExchangeAmount
        Internal1035ExchangeTaxBasis
        IssueAge
        Payment
        StateOfJurisdiction
        UseDOB

So maybe we should just modify "Comments", which seems rather safe, instead?

 Speaking of safety, the test specification doesn't say anything about
preserving the original file, but should the test really modify it? I
understand that it's supposed to test that it's created (and I also want to
test the modification time to ensure that it was really updated, too), but
maybe it should preserve a copy of the original copy and restore it at the
end of the test?

 Thanks in advance for your answers,
VZ