I would agree with the inference that this seems overly verbose and complex. I think your suggestion seems appropriate in this case. We don't need to test ever possible combination of parameters, especially when the method isn't doing anything.
-Nathan > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikhail Loenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:02 AM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [classlib] millions of rmi tests > > I've tried to integrate rmi2 tests to rmi module, and found some odd > things. > > Let's take a look for example at TestActivationGroupDesc.java > > it has 5158 test methods, most of which are very similar. > For example it has 855 tests that invoke constructor with various > parameters > and check that new did not return null and no exception was thrown: > > Compare > > public void > testActivationGroupDescStringStringMarshalledObjectPropertiesCommandEnviro > nment006() > { > > try{ > Properties p= new Properties(); > assertNotNull(msgNotNull, new ActivationGroupDesc(null , null , > new MarshalledObject(new Double(23.4)) , new > Properties() , > new ActivationGroupDesc.CommandEnvironment("Hola la", > new String[0]))); > } catch (Throwable e) { > fail(msgNoException+e); > } > } > > and > > public void > testActivationGroupDescStringStringMarshalledObjectPropertiesCommandEnviro > nment007() > { > try{ > Properties p= new Properties(); > assertNotNull(msgNotNull, new ActivationGroupDesc(null , null , > new MarshalledObject(new Double(23.4)) , new > Properties() , > new ActivationGroupDesc.CommandEnvironment("", null))); > } catch (Throwable e) { > fail(msgNoException+e); > } > } > > > This is how the constructor under test looks like: > public ActivationGroupDesc(String className, String codebase, > MarshalledObject data, Properties props, > ActivationGroupDesc.CommandEnvironment env) { > > this.className = className; > this.location = codebase; > this.data = data; > this.props = props; > this.env = env; > } > > It seems that instead of those million test cases we need just a few > that would verify that getXXX() methods return what was passed into > constructor > plus possibly some tests that pass 'suspicious' parameters like null. > > Thoughts? > > 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]
