Since I can't seem to apply a patch cleanly this week, sure, send it all in
one.
I have thought about the string compare approach, but often that can be very
brittle. It's so easy for some environmental thing to happen and cause and
extra " " or whatnot to creep in, and then it fails. Also, its a bunch more
external files to keep up to date.
However, w/ dumbster, we can manualy check stuff within the test. If you
look at the EmailTest, I check the subject.
We could do something like assertTrue(getBody().indexOf("my message")>0) and
that would work.
Try the .eml, and lets see!
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [email] test cases
>
>
> We have quite a few style violations that have crept back in, do you
> mind if i fix those as well? Do you recommend a separate patch? If
> it is ok with you, i would rather submit one patch for all of it cause
> stuff keeps getting lost :-)
>
> Thanks for the advice,
> Corey
>
> PS. I will try to take you lead with the validation of the email
> contents from dumbster.
> I think that we might also find that if we say emails to .eml (i
> think) then most windows clients should open them up automatically.
> What do you think about making a set of expected outputs (files) and
> then doing a plain string compare?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
