+1 to just add things with appropriate tests.

in the case of Spec in particular, the problem is that is really hard to have UI testing :(
Also� sometimes you break backward compatibility, that�s inevitable� and is ok if is for the best (like in the case of Spec� it was to gain ui platform independence).

but anyway, I do agree that we need to raise our acceptance criteria :)

Esteban

On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:22, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

> We should have a policy on this. I've been guilty of writing new features
> without tests too. It's bad enough we have to deal with untested legacy
> code, but to replace key parts of the system with untested code doesn't seem
> like such a good idea. In particular, the latest Spec refactoring broke a
> lot of the UI. It's a validation of how well it's been received. It has
> become a crucial part of much of the IDE. At various points in 3.0 the
> ChangeSorter, Versionner, and SliderModel have been broken, to name a few,
> and I get mysterious and sudden, often image wrecking, DNUs that appear,
> like TextModel>>#asText. It's made it very hard to work, especially when the
> compiler, RPackage, etc are changing (and sometimes breaking) at the same
> time.
>
>
>
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TDD-in-Core-tp4735378.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>