> -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Walding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:44 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... > > My 2 cents : Test coverage tools like clover show what was not tested but they are not really showing that something was tested. No tool can do this. Even if some code has 100% test cov. it doesn't mean that it is tested or bug free. But surely probability of "stupid" error is going down.
So I subscribe to Jason's opinion here: it's better to test everything explicitly and tests are never harmful and nothing is "too simple to fail". Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
