Please mention lines in tests which is justifying your statement "They prove that the fragile integrity of the class hierarchy that has been meddled with so often is still intact”
I have no problem with solution. I have problem with tests. For reference see section Superficial Test Coverage @ http://www.exubero.com/junit/antipatterns.html#Manual_Assertions . On 19-Aug-2015, at 7:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote: Anshul, I do not think a reference for the intricate problems we face with the hierarchy of the CitrixResourceBase and descendants is fair to ask. I think the burdon of proof is with you and not Rafael. The tests do not just prove that the assignment works as in you example. They prove that the fragile integrity of the class hierarchy that has been meddled with so often is still intact. Rafael and Lucas had a problem at hand and dealt with it according to circumstances. Your example to discredit this is over simplified and does not include the essence of what can go wrong with the way the xenserver resource hierarchy is set up. The solution choosen works, solves a problem and is a reference in it self. If you think it is bad practice, please provide with a reference as to why it is bad. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com<mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>> wrote: @anshul1886 I agree that we disagree. Folks I do not know what to do in this case, I will not looking for references to support what I said and did. Whatever you guys decided I will do (remove or let the test cases there). On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Anshul Gangwar <anshul.gang...@citrix.com<mailto:anshul.gang...@citrix.com>> wrote: Let me summarise the tests class A { x(){ return “d”; a constant } } test p=“d” Assert( A.x() = p) Which can be reduced to class A { q=“d"; } Here q is replacement for x method as it is only returning a constant now test is p=“d" assert (p=q) To me this basically proves that java assignment works and nothing more than that. Here A can be any class. But in this context it is subclass of something. I can’t even figure out how super class coming into picture in tests which you are trying to say. Please explain in context of above example how it is testing more than java assignment. Regards, Anshul On 19-Aug-2015, at 5:16 pm, Anshul Gangwar <anshul.gang...@citrix.com<mailto:anshul.gang...@citrix.com>> wrote: 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 <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com<mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com><mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>> 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 <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com><mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> 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 <anshul.gang...@citrix.com<mailto:anshul.gang...@citrix.com><mailto: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<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com><mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:56 AM, anshul1886 <g...@git.apache.org<mailto:g...@git.apache.org><mailto: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 -- Rafael Weingärtner -- Rafael Weingärtner -- Daan
