IMHO, we should avoid creating duplicate tests. I guess that in this case
the second test was created just only mark that we tested both methods
(readBoolean and writeBoolean).
I think that if there is no unique (different from other scenarios used to
check class implementation) testing scenario for a class's method then we
should mark that the method was tested with others methods. For example, for
our case:
/**
* @tests java.io.RandomAccessFile#readBoolean()
* @tests java.io.RandomAccessFile#writeBoolean()
*/
public void test_readBoolean_AND_writeBoolean() throws IOException {
// Test for method boolean java.io.RandomAccessFile.readBoolean()
RandomAccessFile raf = new java.io.RandomAccessFile(fileName, "rw");
raf.writeBoolean(true);
raf.seek(0);
assertTrue("Incorrect boolean read/written", raf.readBoolean());
raf.close();
}
Thanks,
Stepan.
On 4/19/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I've added a couple of regression tests to
> test/java/tests/api/java/io/RandomAccessFileTest.java
> and a bit reorganized remaining tests to get them close to conventions
> we discussed somewhere here recently.
>
> I've noticed that there are tests that are looking very similar, for
> example:
>
> /**
> * @tests java.io.RandomAccessFile#readBoolean()
> */
> public void test_readBoolean() throws IOException {
> // Test for method boolean java.io.RandomAccessFile.readBoolean()
> RandomAccessFile raf = new java.io.RandomAccessFile(fileName, "rw");
> raf.writeBoolean(true);
> raf.seek(0);
> assertTrue("Incorrect boolean read/written", raf.readBoolean());
> raf.close();
> }
>
> and
>
>
> /**
> * @tests java.io.RandomAccessFile#writeBoolean(boolean)
> */
> public void test_writeBooleanZ() throws IOException {
> // Test for method void java.io.RandomAccessFile.writeBoolean(boolean)
> RandomAccessFile raf = new java.io.RandomAccessFile(fileName, "rw");
> raf.writeBoolean(true);
> raf.seek(0);
> assertTrue("Incorrect boolean read/written", raf.readBoolean());
> raf.close();
> }
>
> I understand that in general we might have couples of equivalent tests
> that
> designed to test different scenarios (because when we change one of those
> tests
> the second one still cover the second scenario...), but do we need this
> kind of
> duplication here?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
