[erlang-questions] Re: False negatives in EUnit

Simon Thompson s.j.thompson@REDACTED
Sun Apr 3 21:17:33 CEST 2011

On 3 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Per Melin wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Simon Thompson <s.j.thompson@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Per - yes, I have been looking at EUnit tests / refactoring - together with Thomas Arts and Huiqing Li -  and one option that we discussed was to indicate potential errors of this sort: things like this are not strictly "illegal" but probably worth checking in more detail. Of course, it's difficult to spot all cases, but the mismatches here make plain that something untoward is probably happening.
> I assume this is something you are doing as a part of Wrangler?

Yes, that's right.
>> I guess they are in fact false *positives* - tests that pass which shouldn't: the worst kind of erroneous test.
> If you want to call them positives or negatives depend on how you
> frame it. :) When I wrote the subject line I was thinking that the
> role of EUnit is to detect errors, and failure to do so would be a
> false negative.

Indeed. Problems whatever!



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list