Can you point to any reference/blog which justifies writing tests for this kind
of scenario?
What I can infer from these tests is that that there are two scenarios
1) Method will not change
In that case it doesn’t make sense to put test for never changing method.
2) Method will change
In that case you have to change test to make it pass and then also it
doesn’t make sense as you have to change test to make it actually pass.
Regards,
Anshul
On 19-Aug-2015, at 4:18 pm, Rafael Weingärtner
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
@anshul1886 I totally agree with you that tests are meant to test individual,
and as you pointed the individual code that we want to test is
“getPatchFilePath”. However, that method is abstract, and its “implementation”
that is as simple as returning a constant, changes in few subclasses of
CitrixResourceBase. I am not testing the constant per se; I am testing if each
one of the implementation of that method is returning what I expect.
In one hand, I agree with you that the method could have documentation. I just
have not done that because I really do not know what that String that the
method is returning is. On the other hand, documentation will not save us from
future bugs, as a consequence of some change in those methods. Those tests can
do that automatically.
If that method had a conditional statement and it was coded into
CitrixResourceBase would you think different? The point here is that object
orientation removed those ifs.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Daan Hoogland
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
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
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:56 AM, anshul1886
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
--
Rafael Weingärtner
