[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18866?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17759054#comment-17759054
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on HADOOP-18866:
-----------------------------------------
Taher-Ghaleb commented on PR #5982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/5982#issuecomment-1693391933
Thanks @steveloughran for your response. I get your point, but I would like
to get your input on the refactorings performed in this PR, and how such a
practice is acceptable in general. In your opinion, why are those test cases
still using `@Test(expected)` instead of the better alternative using
`assertThrows`?
I have created a Jira report and prefixed its id to the PR title. Thanks.
> Refactor @Test(expected) with assertThrows
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-18866
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-18866
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Taher Ghaleb
> Priority: Minor
>
> I am working on research that investigates test smell refactoring in which we
> identify alternative implementations of test cases, study how commonly used
> these refactorings are, and assess how acceptable they are in practice.
> The smell occurs when exception handling can alternatively be implemented
> using assertion rather than annotation: using {{assertThrows(Exception.class,
> () -> \{...});}} instead of {{{}@Test(expected = Exception.class){}}}.
> While there are many cases like this, we aim in this pull request to get your
> feedback on this particular test smell and its refactoring. Thanks in advance
> for your input.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
