a unit can be defined at more then just the method level and in this case those paths have changed from under us in the past. I am not justifying testing any constant this way. I am justifying just this work.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Anshul Gangwar <anshul.gang...@citrix.com> wrote: > What I mean to say is that unit test are meant to test individual unit > which here is getPatchFilePath and not meant to test hierarchy as you are > pointing out here. By individual unit I mean it doesn’t matter for test > that it is in class A or class B. This way you are kind of justifying that > we should write test for any constant which you have defined has the value > which you have given. Because constant under different classes can have > different values. > > Can you point to any reference which justifies writing tests for this kind > of scenario? > > > Regards, > Anshul > > On 19-Aug-2015, at 11:34 am, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:56 AM, anshul1886 <g...@git.apache.org> wrote: > >> If the purpose is to make sure that path is not modified by other >> developer then adding note/comment on top of that line makes more sense. >> Even adding note is kind of implicit as paths are kind of constants which >> any developer would think before changing. Tests are not meant for that >> purpose. >> > > Anshul, I hope I don't understand you when you say, 'tests are not meant > for that pupose'. When the hierarchy is changed and this leads to the > constants to be used in a different way in different classes, an error > occurs due to this that will be caught by these tests. This is exactly what > unit tests are for. > > class A has constant pth="/root". > class B:A has constant pth="/root/bla". > class C:B has no constant hence pth="/root/bla". > > now C is changed to C:A and its pth is there fore changed to "/root". > This is uninteded and a mistake that will be caught by such tests. > > > > -- > Daan > > > -- Daan
