Hi,
* Holger Hans Peter Freyther <holger(a)freyther.de> [2010-07-09 13:00]:
On 07/09/2010 04:58 AM, Sylvain Munaut wrote:
(even
though what could be properly decoded before
also can be properly decoded now, no change for this).
Well, I think that before
encode(decode(x)) == x
if the decoder is too much work right now, you can change the test to
only test encoding. So make it encode(x) == expected_result and add one
test case for the string that was failing, convert the old decoding to
decode(x) == expected_result as well. and you might feel like adding an
expected failure (because the code is missing).
The benefit of changing the test is that you can more easily convince me
that the new code can do everything the old promised and is fixing
something that didn't work with the old one.
Alright, cleaned up the previous code a bit, implemented the
decoder and added a test case which the previous code
encoded incorrect. Please note that just using the new test
case string in the old code will also pass the test even
though the encoding is wrong. You need to compare the
encoded values to e.g. output of pduspy[0]. Patch attached.
Cheers
Nico
[0]
http://www.nobbi.com/download/pduspy.zip