On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 12:04 am, Ed Letifov wrote:
Hello Bruce,
EL>> Anyway, the test is in the attachment. As I said before: started with
EL>> the simplest, hope it helps.
BS> I can certainly commit this test as I'll be writing a bunch of these
BS> later tonight.
Thank you, but still, how does one submit multiple new files? As a jar archive to achieve portability and preserve directory/package structure?
Sure, that'd be cool.
BS> However, I'd like to try to make a decision on what we're
BS> going to do to to determine spec coverage first. Although spec coverage
BS> is crucial, we also just need some simple test coverage of the existing
BS> code base.
Understood. I guess while you are making this decision having the simple test
coverage growing won't hurt?
Absolutely not. The more unit tests the merrier in my book.
BS> I'm wondering if there's a need for two kinds of tests - unit and
BS> spec. Of course, these two can be achieved in the same *Test.java files
BS> and separated simply by a comment line.
I personally like the 'separate spec test' idea more, but I have to admit that a gut feeling exists that it will end up in the same files, and moreover without that comment line.
I'd prefer to keep them separate. Unit tests tend to be focussed on 1 class at a time. Functional tests typically work on a collection of classes. We should probably have different package trees for them. e.g. use the org.apache.geronimo.functional package for any functional tests etc.
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
