Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > David W. Van Couvering wrote: > > >>I agree with you that is disconcerting, but can't JUnit tests be written >>that extend DerbyJUnitTest in parallel with getting DerbyJUnitTest >>cleaned up to everyone's satisfaction? > > > Depends, at some point you put the potential burden of fixing all those > new tests on the person doing the cleanup, that should have been part of > the original submission.
The other issue is that we have a great opportunity to start out with JUnit tests that follow a consistent pattern and provide a great example for others to follow. If we add a number of tests now that haphazardly use the methods in DerbyJUnitTest (because they are not well commented) then we have a set of tests like the current ones. No pattern, no obvious starting point leading to people inventing their own ways to get connections, run ddl, handle exceptions etc. Dan.
