That's an option I should have added to the list, you're right. It does mean
we are not exercising the code that we're shipping, but it's probably better
than nothing.
Milan
On 2013-05-30, at 3:46 PM, Joe Drew wrote:
> On 2013-05-30 3:14 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
>> I'm thinking C++, I ima
On 2013-05-30 3:14 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
I'm thinking C++, I imagine JS may have different answers or suggestions.
Do we have a precedent or a preferred approach when unit testing requires
changes or additions to the code?
I've needed to do this in the past and resorted to an entirely di
> For example, a public method (which we want to test in the unit test) has a
> number of side effects, but we don't have the public accessors to examine all
> of those private side effects/state.
I had this problem with the B2G process priority tests.
>From a mochitest, I wanted to create a va
On 5/30/13 3:14 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
Add public accessors, even if they're (currently) only used by the unit tests.
If it doesn't hurt, this seems like a pretty good solution.
--BDS
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
h
On 2013-05-30 3:14 PM, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
I'm thinking C++, I imagine JS may have different answers or suggestions.
Since you mentioned C++, here is an example of an entire class [1] which
I had to invent so that I can test it [2] in C++. The Gecko consumer
derives [3] from this class, a
5 matches
Mail list logo
