Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!usenet.ukfsn.org!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: unchecked conversion warning. Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:08:03 +0000 (UTC) Organization: UK Free Software Network Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <3s7cs7hd18l0ffci55ns0286n4lc4cutlu@4ax.com> <24hfs7hqsr75jmqgk87jcpfg85kif7nhuo@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.45.235.129 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 1339366083 6217 84.45.235.129 (10 Jun 2012 22:08:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@localhost.localdomain NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:08:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 30dc37b master) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15198 On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:33 -0700, Roedy Green wrote: > Perhaps docs should be written by the folks who write the test code. > The get to ask the coders, decide what makes sense. They will than > answer the questions that need answering and clarify that which is > guaranteed. > Ideally the javadocs would form at least part of the module-level documentation and so should be written by the designers, not the coders. I think there's a case for the module design documentation to be written entirely as a javadoc package suite, i.e. they contain the descriptive text as class and public method level comments as well as the associated declarations. There's also a case for compiling, as a sanity check, them before they are given to the coders. Further, the design team are the people who should specify the module and regression tests and (hopefully) should be writing them too. IME you really don't want coders writing module tests. The problem is that they will tend to write tests for what they coded rather than for what the specification asked them to write and they may skimp on corner cases and error handling. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |