Extending testing of set_value and get_value #46
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There is this an idea in computer science about fundamental laws for implementations of 'state' which include things like putting a value into a store and then retrieving it yields the same result, or that putting the same value twice has the same effect as just doing it once.
I think that this could be checked for the intersection of input and output variables in a BMI to ensure that nothing untoward is happening underneath with
set_valueandget_value. There doesn't seem anything like this in the currentbmi-tester. I have had a first pass at it here which seems to compile (but I need to try it on more things first), but would appreciate some discussion (and I don't mind if this gets closed without merge). Does this makes sense? Is it useful?