Kristian Waagan wrote: > Andreas Korneliussen wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Kristian Waagan wrote: >> <> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I still have a question regarding the placement of JUnit tests. I have >>> brought this up before, but got very little response (I did get some, >>> see below). >>> >>> Do we want to support [unit] testing of package private classes? >> >> >> Maybe it is sufficient to support testing the public methods of public >> classes ? > > > Hi Andreas, > > In my opinion, it is not. > There are some quite complex classes which are not part of the public > API. Testing these indirectly through the public API is a lot of work, > and it might be hard to construct all variations/codepaths.
I think Andreas meant testing a class through its public methods and interfaces, not Derby's public API. E.g. a module implementation can be tested through its api from org.apache.derby.iapi. That should be pretty direct testing that is able to cover all of the code in the module. > I recently experienced this problem. I "solved" it by writing my own > unit test and placing it in the appropriate package, which was not > contributed to the community. But maybe this is more of an exception > than the general case. The existing code base does not have this kind of > tests. I must have missed this test being discussed on the list, can you provide a link to the archives so I can see the kind of issues you were hitting. > If the consensus is not to support unit tests of this kind, I will > either write indirect tests instead or test less of the code. My worry > is the latter approach... One argument could be that if you can't test a code through its public api then there is something wrong with the code, but maybe that's optimistic. That's why I'd like to see the example you hit. Thanks, Dan.
