On 9/15/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
While investigating one of the failed tests from the beans module
(PersistenceDelegateTest#*) I have discovered that the test is doing a
reverse engineering in fact. It passes some worm-like object to public
API method and then analyzes the calling stacktrace of each of its
methods by means of
StackTraceElement[] eles = (new Throwable()).getStackTrace();
if (eles[i].getClassName().equals(…) &&
eles[i].getMethodName().equals(..)) {…}
OMG! what's the intention of such assertion?
In that way, to enable this test we need to rewrite our code and make
it identical to RI's (at least in respect to the stack trace). Such
testing technique may be applied to many parts of Java API, not only
beans. Of course I can imagine some user application doing this but
such people should probably know what they do.
Personally I don't like such methods of testing and vote for
refactoring of these tests. Other opinions? Thoughts?
I strongly agree to refactor these tests!
Thanks,
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
