We probably need to provide some plugin test infrastructure like mock objects and utilities to do the common test tasks.
On 1/30/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to get some feedback from other devs on this topic. > Historically, I think we've done very little of both and would like to > change that. But most of the tests cropping up seem to be integration > tests, because they are probably an easier mechanism than to setup the > preconditions of the plugin. However, they are much larger in terms of > creation, checkout space and time to run. > > I'd like to see that we "unit test" to the greatest extent possible. > IMO, the only reason to go to integration tests is to test lifecycle > interactions and interactions with other plugins. > > What we probably require to do this is convenience methods to construct > a decent project and settings object and an expression populator based > on the project and settings. > > Thoughts? > > - Brett > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
