On 1 October 2010 15:34, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:17:58PM +0100, sebb wrote:
>> There are quite a few test cases that have code like:
>>
>> public void testSomething(){
>> try {
>> something();
>> fail("an exception should have been caught");
>> } catch (EstimationException ee) {
>> // expected behavior
>> } catch (Exception e) {
>> fail("wrong exception type caught");
>> }
>> }
>>
>> This is unnecessary code; worse, the actual Exception is lost.
>>
>> I propose to fix these by converting them to:
>>
>> public void testSomething() throws Exception {
>> try {
>> something();
>> fail("Expecting EstimationException ");
>> } catch (EstimationException ee) {
>> // expected behavior
>> }
>>
>> Any objections?
>
> Shouldn't we move to JUnit 4, i.e. using
> ---CUT---
> �...@test(expected=EstimationException.class)
> public void testSomething() {
> something();
> }
> ---CUT---
>
> [Of course, this would force to split the test methods that currently
> contain multiple statements that can throw an exception.]
Yes, I wondered about that. But it's more work.
Removing the catch(Exception) is fairly mechanical (and would have to
be done anyway when moving to JUnit 4, so would not be wasted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
