Samba Tested Changes Policy?

[Andrew Bartlett]

G'Day,

First, I do wish to express my hearty appreciation to those who built
the infrastructure that allows me to even suggest a statement like the
below.  To those who built, revamped and extended whole frameworks to
ensure that software testing is even possible, I salute you!

I recently went to find our policy on testing code, and could only find
"test your code, run make test" on our Contribute page on the wiki.

Therefore, I propose:

-

"Untested code is broken code"

Therefore all changes made to Samba should include either a specific
automated test, or be clearly covered by an existing testsuite.  

An automated test is one that is called from our autobuild.py script.

Exceptions to this rule should be requested explicitly on samba-
technical, with justification. 

-

I propose that we include it in our Contribute page on our wiki, and in
the source tree in README.code-testing-policy.

This is what most of us apply most of the time anyway, and so I do
realise that this is hard work!  

'Clearly correct' patches still need tests, perhaps even more than
others, and sometimes we just don't have the infrastructure to make
such a test easy.  I particularly admire the work of those who when
presented with this challenge go away and build more test
infrastructure!

I also expect we will issue a lot of exceptions, and on a code-base our
size that is OK.  

What do folks think? 

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba