+1 On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Albert Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for removing no-controlled System.*.println. > > I believe there is a precedence of using a "Test" log channel in existing > tests that can be used to log debug type info. > > Albert Lee. > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Craig L Russell <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Michael Dick wrote: > > > > Hi all, > >> > >> In the most recent commit for OPENJPA-1015 (code conventions for > >> testcases) > >> I noticed there are a lot of System.out.println statements in our > >> testcases. > >> > >> > >> Are the printlns really useful to anyone? The only reason I can see for > >> having them is if the testcase requires some manual interpretation to > >> ensure > >> it passes or fails (generally a sign that you need to rewrite the > >> testcase). > >> At best they take up time formatting Strings and writing out to the > >> console > >> all of which is ignored by the build (or builder). > >> > > > > I agree. Thousands of lines of output serve only to hide the real results > > of the tests. I'd like to see all System.out.println removed from the > test > > cases. Replace them with logger.info directed to a file that someone can > > look at if they want to see what happened. But most developers just want > to > > see tests run and mvn tasks succeed. > > > > Craig > > > >> > >> > >> Is there a good and compelling reason why we keep adding these in? > Adding > >> assert() and fail() checks makes sense - but dumping a bunch of diag > info > >> by > >> default seems wasteful to me. > >> > >> -mike > >> > > > > Craig L Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > > > > -- > Albert Lee. >
