thanks for the great explanation.
-jean
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> This style of code
>>> can be expensive at runtime:
>>> for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>> assertEquals("Testing at iteration " + i, f(i), g(i));
>>> }
>>
>> I'm a fresh guinea pig eager for advice ....
>
> The issue with the example above is the message
> "Testing at iteration " + i
>
> This compiles down to code something like:
>
> StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer("Testing at iteration ");
> sb.append(i);
> sb.toString();
>
> That's a minimum creation of three objects (StringBuffer, char[] and
> String) and at worse five (two more char[]).
>
> Thus some executed code and several object creations for a string object
> that is never used (because tests don't fail in the common case).
>
>> In CallableTest.java I have this:
>>
>> for(int i=0; i< updateCount.length; i++){
>> if(i == 1) // The second command in the batch failed.
>> assertEquals("Batch updateCount", -3, updateCount[i]);
>> else
>> assertEquals("Batch updateCount", -1, updateCount[i]);
>> }
>
> In this example the string message is fixed, so there's no problem with
> the overhead. Assuming the message was something like:
>
> "Batch updateCount at " + i
>
> then the following does make sense. Though I'm not sure it's better, it
> seems to me to be less clear. I'm not sure of a good solution here.
> Maybe performance of the tests is not critical, but then again the
> faster the tests run the better it is for everyone. One issue is that
> how critical is it to have a variable message? If such a failure is
> expected to be very rare (as we hope) then maybe the best solution is to
> have who ever looks at the test add extra debugging information when
> they are investigating a failure.
>
>> would this be advised?
>>
>> for(int i=0; i< updateCount.length; i++){
>>
>> if( (i == 1) && (updateCount[i] != -3) )
>> assertEquals("Batch updateCount", -3, updateCount[i]);
>> else if (updateCount[i] != -1)
>> assertEquals("Batch updateCount", -1, updateCount[i]);
>> }
>
>
> Dan.
