I prefer the 1st but this idea of test method signature is interesting too
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Or have a common, pre-defined test method signature kept in the class
itself.
-Adrian
Adam Heath wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Being upset about inadequate automated tests (though actually we
> have hundreds of them) is a good thing, as long as that translates
> into action... ;)
Oh, it'll translate into action, most definately.
I do have a question, tho. For java-level test cases, would it be
better to have the test code side-by-side with the main classes, or in a
different top-level src tree? Ie, like this:
src/org/ofbiz/minilang/method/callops/CreateObject.java
src/org/ofbiz/minilang/method/callops/tests/CreateObjectTest.java
or:
src/java/org/ofbiz/minilang/method/callops/CreateObject.java
src/tests/org/ofbiz/minilang/method/callops/tests/CreateObjectTest.java
I prefer the former, as it keeps the main code closer to it's test code,
so it's easier to discover problems.
