The changes being small and obvious, let's forget the tests for now. Pascal.
jabber/gtalk: [email protected] msn: [email protected] On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 09:28, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry... :-D > > I've got some difficult to find time to fix them... so writing unit tests > would make them wait an undefined time... > We're still evaluating DbLink for our purpose (with many other tecnology > for other application layers)... > > I'm not used to test private class members, since a refactoring could > invalidate them without a reason, but if the DbLinq coding policy require it > I will search a way (I hate friendly assembly! :-D). > > > Be patient... Where should I add the unit test? Is there yet a tester for > the DataRecordReader.cs and ExpressionEqualityComparer.cs? > > > Giacomo > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Justin Collum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, leaving your tests for someone else to write is bad form. >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Pascal Craponne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> They look fine. I usually suggest adding unit tests. I committed the >>> patch anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 22:52, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> A really small patch... not so deeply tested. >>>> >>>> In our use case, it works better than before.. :-D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Giacomo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
