The most important thing, of course, is that tests are created that ensure that the production code is working as it should. Sure, there are more moving parts in the functional-style. Ideally there would be all flavors of testing in place to ensure all levels are functioning appropriately.
There are certainly no objections about incorporating more mock-style testing into Ant's codebase. The more testing the better!
The dilemma I've encountered when folks catch on to mock unit testing is that they get carried away with it and try to mock too much functionality rather than keeping it focused, at which point you end up with mock objects that are so complex that they require their own unit tests :)
Erik
On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:33 PM, Russell Gold wrote:
The tests I have looked at in ant appear mostly to use a semi- functional test style: they use xml to define a task, run it, and then check some results (which may simply be the lack of an error). I am used to a more unit testing style, in which external classes or subsystems are stubbed out. For example, for my dependencies task, I want to confirm that a dependency is downloaded only if it is not already present, which I do by mocking the fetch mechanism. Is this approach being used somewhere in ant? Has there been any discussion of the two approaches to testing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
