Vincent Massol wrote:
> >
>
> the point is, why reinvent a new format, just use web.xml for MO tests too
> then ... so that the same format is used for both IC and MO ...
>
I didn't really have in mind inventing a new format, more just changing
the name ;) - just to make sure that configuration for testing didn't
"get in the way" of a deployment file.
> We can also allow not to use a web.xml file, as in my proposal. Please vote
> .... :-)
>
ok, ok...
> > I'm not sure I like the arbitrary distinctions between unit and
> > functional testing. Can any of us actually agree on what the scope of a
> > unit test is? Does anyone agree on where unit and "functional" testing
> > begin and end? Or is it more useful to think of "testing code using
> > other code" - i.e. what tests can you usefully write in source code, and
> > what tests do you need to leave to a testing suite (like load testing or
> > regression testing)?
> >
>
> I have changed my mind slightly on the subject and now consider PF (Pure
> Functional) to be a kind of unit test. The functional test would be to
> establish a conversation with the server over several calls.
Good.. I don't think the arbitrary distinctions between unit testing and
other testing is healthy. Doing more testing per se and not getting hang
ups over what type of test to call it? - now that's healthy :)
Jari
--
Jari Worsley
Senior Programmer
Hyperlink Interactive Ltd
