[zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client

[Chuck Remes]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:24 PM, AJ Lewis wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 04:57:13AM +1100, john skaller wrote:
>> 
>> On 04/02/2012, at 4:37 AM, AJ Lewis wrote:
>>> 
>>> Definitely - just concerned that this model continues.  Some of the
>>> talk about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other
>>> contributers to revert them makes me nervous. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> So I would stop feeling nervous about vetting of patches .. and start
>> feeling nervous about the lack of test code :)
> 
> Heh - that is true.  The key here is that test code will catch when
> changes break what was previously working - whether that's a bug or a
> change in interface.  If we has such tests, changes to the tests
> themselves should get greater scrutiny, especially if they're
> accompanied by library code changes, since there's more likely to be
> interface changes (or bugs being worked around!) in that case.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the concept of Test Driven Design - having "contracts"
> that are enforced by the test subsystem goes a long way to keeping
> things sane.  At least then you *know* that you're breaking an interface
> rather than finding out after the fact!

The problem is trying to retrofit an existing codebase with tests. It is very difficult. I'd love to see a good C/C++ coder tackle it; I tried but it was beyond my capabilities.

cr