Timeline for Why did a question about unit-testing get migrated?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 6, 2015 at 20:03 | comment | added | user3610360 | thank you for the feedback, will keep in mind. The do_something method name was indeed a place-holder which has since been updated but I see why it should have been fixed before I posted. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 20:01 | comment | added | Jamal Mod |
@user3610360: Make sure you only post your real code as it appears. Chances are such code won't have a function such as do_something(). As for wording, describe the code itself and what you want out of a review. Something like "method that iterates through loops" is too generic and doesn't say anything about the real code.
|
|
| Aug 6, 2015 at 19:51 | comment | added | user3610360 | Could you suggest edits or a different approach to wording so that I can avoid my questions appearing to be hypothetical in the future. Or point out details of the question that cause you to think it's hypothetical? I appreciate the feedback. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 19:49 | comment | added | Jamal Mod | @user3610360: I wasn't the one who migrated it, but I'm sure this was a reason why it was. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 19:46 | comment | added | user3610360 | Just for my understanding, it wasn't the fact that the question was about unit tests that caused it to get migrated, but that you thought I was asking about a hypothetical situation. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 19:37 | comment | added | user3610360 | I am not sure what was vague about the question, other than the name of the method call at the bottom of the loop ("do_something"). The point of the question was about unit testing the method itself, so having the correct method call at the end seems irrelevant. What other vague-ness did you see as problematic? It was not at all a hypothetical, it's very much code I'm working on actively and have used contributions from code review to improve. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 16:02 | history | answered | JamalMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |