On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:03:01PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> I'm curious, what's a case where private state of a class needs to be
> tested, and tests agains the public interface are not enough?
> In my experience, testing against private parts only makes the tests
> more brittle (that is, ever
Hi,
On 05/12/2015 09:40 PM, R. Ransbottom wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:22:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
>> you can use "trusts". Also having to do this may indicate bad code
>> design. -- Darren Duncan
>
> I saw Moritz' and Carl's responses and I agree with the smell
> issue.
>
>
On 2015-05-12 12:40 PM, R. Ransbottom wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:22:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
you can use "trusts". Also having to do this may indicate bad code
design. -- Darren Duncan
I saw Moritz' and Carl's responses and I agree with the smell
issue.
Given that the code ex
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:22:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> you can use "trusts". Also having to do this may indicate bad code
> design. -- Darren Duncan
I saw Moritz' and Carl's responses and I agree with the smell
issue.
Given that the code exists and needs testing, 'augment' seems
pre
See Moritz Lenz' response to this thread on March 26. To summarize, you can use
"trusts". Also having to do this may indicate bad code design. -- Darren Duncan
On 2015-05-11 2:13 PM, R. Ransbottom wrote:
I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that?
Is there a downsi
> I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that?
Is there a downsize to augment for this?
# source
class Dog {
method bark { say( "#bark"); return "bark" }
method !pee { say( "#pee" ); return "pee"}
}
# test
#use MONKEY_TYPING;
use Test;
use v6;
plan 4;
my Dog
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> Use a separate module (but included with the code for the whole
> package) for the non-class-specific, formerly-private methods to be
> "public", because some of the private
> methods are really general math subroutines. That way I can te
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> This feels like the same conversation we had earlier this week about
> accessing private methods. :) But maybe there are still a few new
> points that can be made.
...
Okay, Carl, I think I understand. But what about this for my
particular sit
This feels like the same conversation we had earlier this week about
accessing private methods. :) But maybe there are still a few new
points that can be made.
Tom (>>), Moritz (>):
>> I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that?
>
> The easiest way to do that is when the cl
On Mar 26, 2015 11:04 AM, "Moritz Lenz" wrote:
> On 26.03.2015 16:55, Tom Browder wrote:
> > I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that
...
> And then you can also do something like:
>
> my $private_method = $obj.^private_method_table{$methodname};
> $obj.$private_metnod(ar
Hi,
On 26.03.2015 16:55, Tom Browder wrote:
> I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that?
The easiest way to do that is when the class with the private methods
trusts the class that calls them. See for example
http://doc.perl6.org/type/Metamodel::Trusting
http://design.per
I need to test some private routines, so is there a way to do that?
Or will I have to copy code to a test script or?
BTW, the tests are for input/output checks during development--not for
the public user.
Thanks.
Best,
-Tom
12 matches
Mail list logo
