4 ms·

Put the script in a comment at the top of the code. It looks kinda funny and people tend to dislike that kind of thing in pull-requests, but I always just ask t

Put the script in a comment at the top of the code. It looks kinda funny and people tend to dislike that kind of thing in pull-requests, but I always just ask them to hold their breath and pretend the script isn't there. If the script isn't still useful the next time that code has meaningful change then remove it. I've never seen such scripts get removed - in fact they tend to evolve as the code they test/generate/modify does.

erichahn 5y ago
Why not as its own file in the directory of the source code? Or in another directory...
- ryanianian 5y ago
  I've seen junk drawer directories in repos full of similar files and usually the scripts don't get updated over time (perhaps the authors don't want to have their updates to the scripts reviewed). Having it with the file it manages commented out indicates it's intended as a purpose-built tool or historical artifact just for this file. Beyond this it's just personal/team preference though.
jacoblambda 5y ago
Alternatively put it in a test scripts directory and put a comment linking to it in the header of the file (or readme if it's multiple files).
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  No context here so I have to assume it's possible: why not include it in the automated test suite?
  - jacoblambda 5y ago
    Generally you should but depending on the type of test it might be prohibitive. I've definitely written up tests for validation purposes that I wouldn't use in a test suite normally before. Said tests usually require some complex or brittle setup and take hours or days to run. Because of that said tests are kept around for rare occasions. Because they take so long and/or are so brittle, it's easier to just keep them on the side and update them when needed rather than deal with the back and forth on that in a project with a lot of code churn (i.e. when updating or retrofitting a legacy project). Once again, it's not ideal but it's better than nothing.

erichahn 5y ago

Why not as its own file in the directory of the source code? Or in another directory...

ryanianian 5y ago
I've seen junk drawer directories in repos full of similar files and usually the scripts don't get updated over time (perhaps the authors don't want to have their updates to the scripts reviewed). Having it with the file it manages commented out indicates it's intended as a purpose-built tool or historical artifact just for this file. Beyond this it's just personal/team preference though.

jacoblambda 5y ago

Alternatively put it in a test scripts directory and put a comment linking to it in the header of the file (or readme if it's multiple files).

tharkun__ 5y ago
No context here so I have to assume it's possible: why not include it in the automated test suite?
- jacoblambda 5y ago
  Generally you should but depending on the type of test it might be prohibitive. I've definitely written up tests for validation purposes that I wouldn't use in a test suite normally before. Said tests usually require some complex or brittle setup and take hours or days to run. Because of that said tests are kept around for rare occasions. Because they take so long and/or are so brittle, it's easier to just keep them on the side and update them when needed rather than deal with the back and forth on that in a project with a lot of code churn (i.e. when updating or retrofitting a legacy project). Once again, it's not ideal but it's better than nothing.