David Crossley wrote:
> Is "unit testing" different to "functional testing", or are they
> complementary?
They are indeed complimentary. In a nutshell, unit tests ensure that the
indiviviual methods within individual classes behave as expected.
Funtional tests ensure that the system as a whole behaves as expected.
In other words, unit tests operate on classes (in many cases individual
methods), functional tests will emulate a user actually using the system
as a whole so operate on combinations of classes.
> Here are a few relevant Anteater threads ...
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101831758001240
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=102168000122016
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101897525908787
Thanks, I will look into Anteater (took a brief look the other day,
looks like good stuff).
>
> You mention something above that could be key ... if only
> unit tests were interesting. I wonder if Cocoon could help
> itself here. If the results of running the test suite were generated
> as xml, we could have a Sample that demonstrates how happy
> Cocoon is with its current state.
JUnit (the most popular unit testing tool, http://www.junit.org)) does
indeed export its results in XML format. There are also lots of tools
that will show how much code is covered by the tests. It would certainly
be possible to create some nice reports showing how well the code is
tested.
> The developers would like to
> be sure that their favourite classes were behaving well.
So what do other developers think of this. Is it worth the effort? Will
you take responsability for improving the test coverage of your code if
given suchg reports?
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
