#2269: test real RemoteCommands and FakeRemoteCommands with the same tests
------------------------+--------------------
Reporter: tom.prince | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: 0.8.+
Version: 0.8.6p1 | Resolution:
Keywords: tests |
------------------------+--------------------
Comment (by dustin):
Summary adjusted with what I think is a better solution here -- test that
the fakes and the real implementations pass the same tests -
http://pyvideo.org/video/629/stop-mocking-start-testing
From discussion in irc, though, it sounds like this case was a little more
tricky -- an invalid function keyword argument was added to
!FakeRemoteCommand that was not present in !RemoteCommand. I think there
are three ways to uncover problems like this, and we should aim to do all
three:
* test fakes and real objects with the same tests
* use introspection to make assertions about function/method arguments
* once this is in place and known, code review should look for
parallelism in changes to real and fake objects
* light use of integration testing as a fallback
I'm not a big fan of heavy-duty integration testing, as it's *very*
difficult to hit every possibility. In this case, a few integration tests
running e.g., Git steps against a fake slave may not have triggered this
particular error.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.buildbot.net/ticket/2269#comment:3>
Buildbot <http://buildbot.net/>
Buildbot: build/test automation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Buildbot-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/buildbot-commits
