I have to agree we're missing a well-defined pattern and associated
"guidebook" on how to do this right. And I agree we should get this
done before too many more JUnit tests are written.
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
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.
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
