Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37291 > unrolled thread

What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-08-19 19:37 +0200
    Re: What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-08-19 21:36 +0200
      Re: What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-08-19 20:07 -0400
        Re: What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-08-20 04:43 +0200
    Re: What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-08-19 20:03 -0400
    Re: What is the ???standard??? when using a constant in several unit tests leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2017-08-20 04:36 -0500
      Re: What is the ???standard??? when using a constant in several unit tests Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2017-08-20 12:21 +0200
    What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests lewbloch@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 09:46 -0700
      Re: What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-08-20 13:12 -0400

#37291 — What is the ‘standard’ when using a constant in several unit tests

I have several test classes that have the following constant:
    private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";

Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37296

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> writes:
>>I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>>    private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
>>Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?
>
>   You can put it into an extra class:
>
> public final class TestConstants
> { public static final java.lang.String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite"; }

That is not frowned upon?
I implemented it.


>   . Just remember: When the constant is changed, the change
>   might not have the desired effect, because the value of the
>   constant might have been compiled ("burned") into other
>   classes. It might be necessary to force a recompilation
>   of all the test classes in this case.

I am using maven. That takes care of it I think.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37308

On 8/19/2017 3:36 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> writes:
>>> I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>>>     private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
>>> Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?
>>
>>    You can put it into an extra class:
>>
>> public final class TestConstants
>> { public static final java.lang.String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite"; }
> 
> That is not frowned upon?

No. Well maybe. But Joshua Bloch recommends it in "Effective Java". So
you can certainly defend the approach.

Arne

PS: He recommends a private constructor to prevent instantiation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37309

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 8/19/2017 3:36 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> writes:
>>>> I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>>>>     private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
>>>> Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?
>>>
>>>    You can put it into an extra class:
>>>
>>> public final class TestConstants
>>> { public static final java.lang.String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite"; }
>>
>> That is not frowned upon?
>
> No. Well maybe. But Joshua Bloch recommends it in "Effective Java". So
> you can certainly defend the approach.

OK, thanks.


> PS: He recommends a private constructor to prevent instantiation.

That I always do with a class that should not be initiated. ;-)

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37307

On 8/19/2017 1:37 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>      private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
> 
> Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?

Several test classes with common functionality seems like
a good case for an abstract base class.

If you already got a base class, then just put it there.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37310 — Re: What is the ???standard??? when using a constant in several unit tests

Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
> I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>     private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
> 
> Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?
> 

Well, that depends. Are the test classes written specifically
for this database, or are they written for a generic database?

If it's the latter, it makes more sense to put it centrally,
and if it's the latter it makes more sense to leave it in 
place.

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37311 — Re: What is the ???standard??? when using a constant in several unit tests

leif.roar@dimnakorr.com writes:

> Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
>> I have several test classes that have the following constant:
>>     private static final String TEST_DB = "testDB.sqlite";
>> 
>> Is this the way to do it, or should it be put centrally?
>> 
>
> Well, that depends. Are the test classes written specifically
> for this database, or are they written for a generic database?
>
> If it's the latter, it makes more sense to put it centrally,
> and if it's the latter it makes more sense to leave it in 
> place.

It was the latter, but I am probably going to rewrite my tests.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37324

Many choices.
- A constants class, considered by many an antipattern.
- Injected, a very "in" pattern.
- Resource manager call, classic and reliable approach and even compatible with injection.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37326

On 8/20/2017 12:46 PM, lewbloch@gmail.com wrote:
> Many choices.
> - A constants class, considered by many an antipattern.

Maybe.

But recommended by Joshua Bloch.

That is good enough for me.

> - Injected, a very "in" pattern.
> - Resource manager call, classic and reliable approach and even compatible with injection.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web