Tim Ellison wrote:
yuk! what is this test trying to achieve?
Andrew Zhang wrote:
OMG! what's the intention of such assertion?
It seems that the original author of these tests aims to wrote as much
code as possible. To have a nice monthly report may be - I don't know
much details about BB life. And since the PersistenceDelegate test
itself is a rather small class he probably decide that normal tests is
not sufficient... :-)
Regards,
2006/9/15, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
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]
