📅 Original date posted:2017-03-31
📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> A better way to present your work would have been to at least explain that
> at
> the top of the file, and perhaps even better, split the reference
> implementation and optimized implementation into two separate files. If
> you did
> this, you'd be more likely to get others to review your work.
>
I've now added explanation to the README, reorganized the files, and added
some comments:
https://github.com/bramcohen/MerkleSet
In fact, I'd suggest that for things like edge cases, you test edge cases in
> separate unit tests that explain what edge cases you're trying to catch.
>
The tests work by doing a lot of exercising on pseudorandom data, an
approach which does a good job of hitting all the lines of code and edge
cases and requiring very little updating as the implementation changes, at
the expense of it taking a while for tests to run. The advantage of very
custom unit tests is that they run almost instantly, at the cost of
requiring painstaking maintenance and missing more stuff. I've come to
favor this approach in my old age.
The proportion of code devoted to tests is more than it looks like at first
blush, because all the audit methods are just for testing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170331/797a3461/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 17:56:51
in reply to nevent1q…angx
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 17:56:51Event JSON
{
"id": "ad7d628952c6d0b8ce5d08365ef6b4604831e9fe7d6dde992c2b735bd0d362ca",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686160611,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ea26a10c9db1f619b5c08bf3401b1d68317c99fb6749769fe543ef9a8f79cb1e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5e237ad703a9b1a0c6a72aba7a1b4bff7689f3bc55ad3f5295f5b30b73336fe7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-31\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e A better way to present your work would have been to at least explain that\n\u003e at\n\u003e the top of the file, and perhaps even better, split the reference\n\u003e implementation and optimized implementation into two separate files. If\n\u003e you did\n\u003e this, you'd be more likely to get others to review your work.\n\u003e\n\nI've now added explanation to the README, reorganized the files, and added\nsome comments:\n\nhttps://github.com/bramcohen/MerkleSet\n\nIn fact, I'd suggest that for things like edge cases, you test edge cases in\n\u003e separate unit tests that explain what edge cases you're trying to catch.\n\u003e\n\nThe tests work by doing a lot of exercising on pseudorandom data, an\napproach which does a good job of hitting all the lines of code and edge\ncases and requiring very little updating as the implementation changes, at\nthe expense of it taking a while for tests to run. The advantage of very\ncustom unit tests is that they run almost instantly, at the cost of\nrequiring painstaking maintenance and missing more stuff. I've come to\nfavor this approach in my old age.\n\nThe proportion of code devoted to tests is more than it looks like at first\nblush, because all the audit methods are just for testing.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170331/797a3461/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "ebe575f44a037705c9058314eca6fd82e8972b4a8d00e115dba13df1a2e747f47e46626a3a38f7093c0239432d1349854b7842b4e12963ccdbfcdf187250448a"
}