DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17987>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17987 Subclassing and EqualsBuilder is broken ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-14 18:07 ------- Thank you for your thoughts, making good unit tests is key! Perhaps better comments would help of course... ;-) The reasons I implemented asserting equivalence relationships all in the one method testReflectionEqualsEquivalenceRelationship is to allow for the whole equals contract to be validated at once. If the method where broken up in its component tests (reflection, symetry, transitivity, and sanity checks), it would be possible for tests case methods to be written that only assert a portion of the equals contract. IOW, this is a case where refactoring could introduce some bugs in the future. In your example style, I would have to remember to write all of the testSubclassingIsXXX methods for a given object fixture in order to assert the contract. The test case methods can be written to call testReflectionEqualsEquivalenceRelationship and be named for what they kind of objects tree they test. So the test case writer can dream up some nasty object tree and create a test case for it. For this test case, you can consider that the focus is on writing test fixtures rather than new equals contract assertions. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
