Hi Mikhail,
Comments inlined below.
Best regards,
George
IBM UK
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi Anton,
On 1/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/27/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for being away during the major part of your discussion. Hope
I'm still not too late.
As I can see currently we have only one 'exotic' situation - some
tests which are based on providers and use so many provider's
fucntionality that cannot be replaced with mock objects in a
reasonable time.
You have only one example, not one situation - there is a difference... <g>
Would you like to give us some more examples ?
Harmony has a modular structure and final product may be assembled from
the modules we can not even think of yet. And the only thing we know about
those modules is that they follow the spec.
You likely know, security module that does not have any provider or any
algorithm implementation follows the spec :). How do you think, will
java.util or java.crypto work without those implementations? No.
So, following your logic, all unit tests should either do not rely on
other modules
or include their own implementation of those modules (and better - full J2SE
implementation :).
That was not my interpretation of what Anton wrote. What do you consider
is actually being tested by a unit test ? Is it *just your code* or is
it *your code plus the system around it* ? I am really keen to hear your
answer as I think it lies at the very heart of this discussion.
Tests that do not include their own J2SE are system ones,
as they rely on environment.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this point please ?
What I think is we have to be ready that some functionality would be unusable
or untestable in some situations and our tests/framework would better
be ready for it.
That is a system test issue not a unit test issue.
Thanks,
Mikhail
