On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Andrey Turkin <andrey.turkin@gmail.com> wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Andrey Turkin <andrey.turkin@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't see any value in commented out test or sort-of-meaningless code
comment.
The tests serve as documentation of the API. In many cases, that
documentation is far superior to even msdn. Just because you know
that the implementation matches native doesn't mean that someone else
looking to work on the function knows that. He'll then waste time
figuring out what you already know. Ask yourself the opposite: what's
the harm in adding such documentation?
Non-misleading comment obviously cannot make any harm, and I can imagine one
(unlikely but not impossible)
case when comment can be helpful so yes, I'll add both commented out tests
and sort-of-meaningless comment :)
Hopefully nobody will object them.
Please don't add a comment to the implementation. The tests are
documentation enough. All you need to do is if(0) out the tests that
crash.
Imagine broken application which for some reason, e.g. non-allocated
memory, supply NULL to this function, and then catch, eat and spew an
exception somewhere in different place. Joe the Developer start
searching for root cause - he looks at logs, see first-chance
exception, look in CredReadDomainCredentials source and see unguarded
dereferencing. Is this intended or mistake? That should code really do?
The comment would be handy here (at least for me tests wouldn't be the
first place to look at for answers in such situation).