Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37848
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> (Eric Sosman) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Calling deprecated methods |
| Date | 2017-12-13 08:21 +1200 |
| Organization | fsxNet Usenet Gateway | bbs.geek.nz/#fsxNet |
| Message-ID | <2472835388@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net> (permalink) |
| References | <1795335397@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net> |
On 12/13/2017 7:51 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 5:57:21 PM UTC-5, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> ... or mostly right. A setter that is supposed to enforce a
>> restriction like "the value must be strictly positive" should be
>> tested to ensure that it does in fact throw the proper exception.
>> Similarly for setters with state dependencies like "the value can
>> be changed at will before the doItNowBabe() method is called, but
>> cannot be changed thereafter."
>>
>>> [... good advice about test harnesses ...]
>>> Been there, done that, got the benefits.
>>
>> Ditto, seconded, and Aayy-men!
>
> Interaction is sometimes the hard part of testing. Method A works fine,
unless you've called Method B with value C then Method D with value E first?
Lots of things are the hard part of testing. :(
Some practitioners who have given the matter much more thought
than I ever will are scrupulous about distinguishing between "unit tests" and
"integration tests" and "system tests" (Aside: when did "acceptance tests" go
out of fashion?), but to me the demarcation lines seem not perfectly sharp. A
test for your A/B/D example might be viewed as an integration test of the A/B/D
methods, or as a unit test of the component that owns all three (does it make
the advertised state transitions in the expected way?). Deeper thinkers than I
may have a useful way to classify such things; for myself, I just try to
figure out Some Kind Of Test and let the nomenclature slide.
--
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
Eleven hundred thirty-four days to go.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-12 16:31 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> (Eric Douglas) - 2017-12-12 10:24 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-12 20:05 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> (Eric Sosman) - 2017-12-12 15:41 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-12 21:04 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> (Eric Douglas) - 2017-12-12 13:33 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-12 22:41 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> (Eric Sosman) - 2017-12-12 17:57 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> (Eric Douglas) - 2017-12-13 04:51 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> (Eric Sosman) - 2017-12-13 08:21 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> (Eric Douglas) - 2017-12-13 05:40 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-13 15:19 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> (Eric Douglas) - 2017-12-13 07:57 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> (Kiwi User) - 2017-12-13 17:30 +1200
Re: Calling deprecated methods Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-12-15 22:31 -0500
Re: Calling deprecated methods Kiwi User <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2017-12-16 09:08 +0000
csiph-web