> The ball is in your court.
You may not have seen my other thread on that. I'm passing the ball. It's not likely that I'll be able to write unit tests for Question Bank any time soon.
If there already WERE unit tests and I just needed to add tests for the new feature, I could probably do that. Since there aren't existing unit tests, I'd need to do everything from scratch, just like other places where I've had to redesign an entire API in order to get a typo fixed. I'm not going to be able to do that because I'm busy fixing bugs and writing useful new features.
I have a ton of useful improvements our instructional designers and instructors use if you ever want to integrate them into your code. I've pretty well given up on integration. A commit is rejected because it doesn't fix the whitespace formatting in other, unrelated code, then when that's added it's rejected because it DOES fix the formatting in the unrelated code. A function is rejected because it has an object as a parameter ("pass class names, not objects", someone says). Change it to accept a class name and it's rejected for doing so. I could deal with that for NEW CODE I'm submitting, but I'm afraid I just don't have time do an entire module like that every time a change is made. Maybe one day Question Bank will have unit tests and I'll merge some of the cool stuff we're doing, writing unit tests for our stuff.