The problem with these components is that the beans don't really get exercised inside this component, so you can really assess the coverage until you run it as part of, say, maven-model-tools.
As it ended up, only 2 getter/setter tests were really needed, as some more complex tests for artifact's covered the rest. - Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Walding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 11:44 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: cvs commit: > maven-components/maven-model/src/test/org/apache/maven/model > DependencyTest.java > > > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > >On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 16:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > >>brett 2004/01/04 13:57:53 > >> > >> Modified: maven-model/src/test/org/apache/maven/model > >> DependencyTest.java > >> Log: > >> improve testing, remove stuff "to simple to fail" > >> add ASL > >> > >> > > > >What does "too simple to fail" mean? If you're refering to > >getters/setters then please put them back. It contributes to > coverage > >and getters/setters are certainly subject to accidental typos. > > > >It's just hard to tell from the cvs log but it looked like > >getters/setters to me. > > > > > > > I don't necessarily agree that getters and setters should be tested > explicitly. If you are exercising your beans properly, the > getters and > setters should be getting hit by other methods. If they are > not getting > hit, and you have good coverage across the board, then that tends to > indicate that you might not need those attributes any more. > > > Just another perspective... > > > Ben > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
