[merge] doc testing of exceptions

[Martin Pool]

On 7/12/07, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:

> +.. TODO: Should have some explanation of why you'd want things in
> +.. branch.conf.
> +
>
> I don't think we should put TODO's in the user manual. Perhaps you could
> file a bug instead which will be visible and queryable.

I disagree.  They're in ReST comments so not visible to the user
reading the html or printed documentation.

Hm, I really don't want to have a bikesheddy conversation about todo
comments in general.  I think for me it comes down to this: with any
bug tracker, adding a proper bug and finding it again is much slower
(I would say >10x) than just adding a comment into the code if you're
already there.  If it's an incidental aside which does not need to be
visible to users or prioritized or scheduled, then adding a todo is
ok.

> +
> +In some cases blackbox tests will also want to check error reporting.
> But
> +it can be difficult to provoke every error through the commandline
> +interface, so those tests are only done as needed -- eg in response to
> a
> +particular bug or if the error is reported in an unusual way(?)
> +
>
> I think its worth noting that blackbox tests are not testing the error
> formatting because that is tested separately. So the thing for blackbox
> tests is to try to exercise ways in which the code *within builtins.py*
> can break, not code deeper down.

OK, I'll add that.

> One thing that seems weird about your diff to me is we already have
> testing documentation in HACKING - why is your new content titled
>
> +Testing Bazaar
> +--------------

Brain fade.

-- 
Martin