ok, I agree.
I will write new tests
ran
----- Original Message -----
From: "Berin Loritsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Avalon Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: contract and unit tests
> ran tene wrote:
> >
> > i just meant that i can check the code in one fo the ways it was meant
to
> > be/is used
> > for example
> > try
> > {
> > MyComponent log;
> > myComponent = (MyComponent) manager.lookup(MyComponent.ROLE);
> > }
> > catch (...)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> > or in any other way that it can be used
> > for example:
> > try
> > {
> > MyComponent log;
> > myComponent = (MyComponent) manager.lookup("some-string");
> > }
> > catch (...)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> > if i choose the first option then
> > 1 - people can use the test to learn how to use the class. the thoght
behind
> > the class.
> > 2 - but, changes in the class implementaiton which depend on the fact
that
> > role represent some interface or any static field will not result in a
> > failure (i know its a paranoidic thought ,but maybe thats what tests
are
> > for).
> >
> > my question is about the target of unit tests.
>
> In this case your test should match what is documented. The Component
manager
> should look up ROLEs. Technically, we could test for illegal characters
like
> the hyphen (this is for interface names), but during run time, that is not
an
> acceptable performance hit.
>
> >
> > p.s.
> > sorry for my english
> > your project is very interesting. I want to use it for some application
> > server
> > for a distributed gui.
> >
> > thanx
> > ran
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Avalon Development" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 7:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: contract and unit tests
> >
> > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 02:48, ran tene wrote:
> > > > there is a wide gap between the documented english writen contract
of
> > the
> > > > ComponentManager and ComponentSelctor and its implementation - the
> > > > implementation is much wider. the writen contract is only one
possible
> > way
> > > > of using the classes. when i wrote the unit tests i faced this
problem.
> > > > which contract should i check?
> > > > 1-the english one.
> > > > 2-the code.
> > > > option 1 makes the unit test more helpfull for peaople who wants to
> > learn
> > > > how the code was meant to be used. -part of the documentation.
> > > > what is the real contract of the classes?
> > > > this time i checked the code contract- option 2 ,but im not sure ...
> > >
> > > Could you describe the differences?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > When a stupid man is doing something he's ashamed of, he always
> > > declares that it is his duty.
> > > George Bernard Shaw
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
