* Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-30 08:42]: > On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 06:22, Michal Maczka wrote: >> Peter Donald wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:05 pm, Ben Walding wrote: >>> One school of thought suggests that no test should NEVER require >>> resources external to the TestCase. You can always use Mock >>> objects or manually construct pre-conditions for test, run the >>> test and then test the output. >>> External resources for unit tests are only required if there is >>> badly written code or badly written tests. While I previously >>> used to litter my unit tests with other resources I now think it >>> is a really bad idea. Can you give an example where there is a >>> good reason to have resources associated with unit tests? >> There is a lot of examples of such unit tests. E.g. I18N >> service which reads messages from XML files. To test it you need >> to provide few XML files and to place them somewhere. Mock >> object are not really helpful here. > I think what Peter is saying, in the example above, is that you > might create a String with test XML bits in it. Then use a > StringReader to process the XML. Sounds like dogma. Why would I want to edit XML inside a Java string in a Java editor, when I could edit it an XML editor? Tests are programs. Test writers sould make resonable choices about the use of facilities provided by the language or platform. Why shouldn't a test writer have the advantage of using the file system to store the data for her program? Because it is merely "school of thought", the endoresed directory structure should accomodate those that do not attend that school. -- Alain Javier Guarnieri del Gesu - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
