Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:38:46 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 18:21 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:02:55AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > The object of having a test suite conform to the spec is not to > > perpetuate the cockups that occurred in round one of the implementation > > and to force everyone to pay closer attention to what the spec says. > > Otherwise the amount of workarounds is just going to grow without > > bounds. > > There's a benefit in having a test suite that prevents new errors from > being introduced, but there's no benefit in failing on errors that we > have to work around anyway. We have the code. We're never going to be > able to remove the code.
It's not about us removing the code, it's about us having an accurate compliance test. There are two reasons for having a fully correct compliance test
1. Our work arounds have unintended consequences which have knock on effects which mean that you don't know if a test failure is real or an unintended consequence of a work around. 2. New features in specs tend to build on previous features, so we're going to have a hard time constructing accurate tests for layered features where we've done a work around for the base feature.
James
| |