Francois Orsini wrote: > > > On 1/24/06, *Kristian Waagan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > David W. Van Couvering wrote: > > Hi, Kristian, thanks for your questions. My one overriding thought is > > we should take this in incremental steps -- do all of these questions > > need to be answered before we can rewrite a single old canon-based > test > > to a JUnit test? Can some of these questions be deferred? > > Yes, they can be deferred. I did not intend to say that we should try to > fix/implement all issues/features at in one step. > > My main point of concern, is that it is too hard to write JUnit tests > now, because there is so little information available. Just have a look > at the number of JUnit tests that have been added to the repository - it > sure ain't many! The conversion process, which I understand is fully > based on "it's my itch" initiatives, is also moving along very, very > slowly. > > > +1 - I have now written some derby jUnit tests myself and I agree that > it may not be that obvious from the beginning (different paradigm from > canon-based tests) - I used jUnit before so it did help. I'm currently > scratching a few itches but I'd be glad to post some instructions unless > some itch-scratching idle volunteer want to take into that heroic task > ;-) - jUnit aims at making unit testing easier and more effective > therefore we just need to make the Derby jUnit adoption easier and more > effective ;-)
I would like my concerns to be cleared up before too many tests use the current Junit facility. The rampant catching and ignoring of SQLExceptions is not good. Dan.
