RE: A unit test story

[<Dirk-Jan Binnema nokia com>]

Hi Philip, 

[....]

>No it didn't, Dirk. It worked for you because you already had 
>folders in your cache.
>
>Next time, and this isn't to accuse Dirk of something: lets 
>make SURE the unit tests pass before you guys send me a patch.
>
>It DOES save time. Mine AND yours. It IS interesting 
>information (whether or not a unit test succeeds). You DO 
>learn from the results whether or not your patch actually does 
>what it promises to do. It DOES test whether or not you broke 
>something.
>
>DO use them. Yes DO use them. And DO make them. DO update 
>them. DO run them frequently. If you want to contribute to 
>tinymail: I insist you do.

Well, unit tests are valuable, definitely. *However*, this example
shows that the danger of unit tests is also that they might not
be complete. So... maybe the unit tests should be run in both
the have-cache and don't-have-cache cases? Apparently those are
different.

Another thing: the unit tests segfault / spew out warnings on
my machine (amd/64). So... in other words: unit tests are not
infallible... 

Still, unit tests are useful, and I'll double-check the next time.
But also, -Wall -Werror proved to be very useful to fix existing
tinymail bugs. (eg. some non-void functions ended in 'return;'.)

Anyway: great to see those ugly function die :-)

Best wishes,
Dirk (who was had very little time to hack lately...)