No, you are right, I really don't. Thanks for your idea. I should consider decoupling those parts, in a somehow nice way.
Ben Burwell <golang-n...@benburwell.com> 於 2019年4月9日 週二 下午8:10 寫道： > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:33:44PM -0700, nanmu42 wrote: > > I don't know you, but to me, writing Golang test is a little dreary. > > > > As a discussion, I think this proposal could bring some improvement. > > > > How do you like it? > > > > https://github.com/golang/go/issues/31135 > > In your (admittedly contrived) example, I think a better solution would be > to > provide your farm package with a mock result from the weather API call. For > example: > > // farm/farm.go > package farm > > // WaterVolume calculates the amount of water in liters to be applied > when > // the temperature is t degrees celsius > func WaterVolume(t int) int { > return t * 5 // whatever > } > > You could even do something like > > // weather/weather.go > package weather > > struct Weather { > Temperature int > } > > // farm/farm.go > package farm > > struct Farm { > wx *weather.Weather > } > > func NewFarm(wx *weather.Weather) *Farm { > return &Farm{wx} > } > > func (f *Farm) WaterVolume() int { > return f.wx.Temperature * 5 > } > > The added benefit of doing something like this is that you can cleanly > separate > out what you're testing: do you really WANT to be testing your weather API > calls > in the farm package? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
