Unit test requirements (was Re: [Coin-discuss] OsiCbc)

[Ted Ralphs]

Brady Hunsaker wrote:
> Without commenting on the specific issues below, I'd like to suggest 
> that we form a group of interested OSI developers to try to more 
> carefully specify expected OSI behavior and design the unit test 
> accordingly.  The issues in this email need to be resolved, as do some 
> that have come up in the past.
> 
> As maintainer of OsiGlpk I have never been too careful about the unit 
> test for these reasons.  If we put some thought into clarifying the 
> behavior we want, then we can write it down for developers and adjust 
> the unit test accordingly so that it is more useful and all interfaces 
> regularly pass the unit test.  I think that will help OSI a great deal.
> 
> What do you think of creating such written guidelines for OSI behavior? 
>  I'm happy to be part of the group, though I would prefer that someone 
> with broader OSI experience take the lead.

A mailing list for the OSI is probably appropriate. I think written 
documentation is a good goal, but realistically, it's easier (and 
perhaps better) just to say that the expected behavior for an interface 
is simply that it pass the unit test. If we design and comment the unit 
test carefully, then any deviations from the required behavior will be 
easy to understand and fix. This way, we don't have to try to keep the 
documentation in sync with the unit test if we make changes. What do you 
think?

Cheers,

Ted
-- 
Dr. Ted Ralphs
Assistant Professor
Industrial and Systems Engineering
Lehigh University
(610)758-4784
tkralphs at lehigh.edu
www.lehigh.edu/~tkr2