Thanks a lot for your replies. My opinion:
* I didn’t know the “precision” issue pointed out by Denis so thanks about that and indeed it can be a problem in some cases * I made this proposal only because ExpectedException is part of JUnit and I thought it was the new best practice * I don’t like too much introducing a third-party library because it makes our tests non-standard (i.e. if you only know JUnit you’ll also need to understand that other library) and I don’t think the complexity introduced by a new library outweights the gains in this case. But it everyone feels strongly about introducing a new lib, I’m ok too. * I’m perfectly fine to continue using our try/catch idiom. Thanks -Vincent On 15 Jan 2015 at 10:48:19, Eduard Moraru (enygma2...@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2...@gmail.com)) wrote: > A nice review on the various ways of testing for exceptions: > http://blog.codeleak.pl/2013/07/3-ways-of-handling-exceptions-in-junit.html > (also talks about and links to a getting started post on catch-exception). > > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Eduard Moraru > wrote: > > > +0, leaning to -0, mainly due to the lack of precision that could cause > > some not very obvious to debug test failures. > > > > What about this: https://code.google.com/p/catch-exception/ ? > > > > It seems to have a very flexible syntax and you don`t have (AFAICS) the > > drawback/issues pointed out by Denis. > > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < > > mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > >> +1, although defining expectations is more like JMock than Mockito > >> with respect to code style. I guess there's no way to verify the > >> exception after invoking the component under test. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Marius > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 1:51 PM, vinc...@massol.net > >> wrote: > >> > Hi devs, > >> > > >> > I’d like to propose that we use the strategy described at > >> https://github.com/junit-team/junit/wiki/Exception-testing (thanks to > >> Lyes for pointing out this page to me). > >> > > >> > For example: > >> > > >> > @Test > >> > public void sendSynchronousWithErrors() throws Exception > >> > { > >> > ... > >> > this.thrown.expect(MessagingException.class); > >> > this.thrown.expectMessage("Some messages have failed to be sent > >> for the following reasons: " > >> > + > >> "[[[errorsummary1],[errordescription1]][[errorsummary2],[errordescription2]]]"); > >> > > >> > > >> this.mocker.getComponentUnderTest().send(Arrays.asList(message), session); > >> > } > >> > > >> > I feel it’s slightly better than our current idiom based on try/catch. > >> One advantage is that we cannot forget to put the fail(). > >> > > >> > WDYT? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > -Vincent > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > devs mailing list > >> > devs@xwiki.org > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> devs@xwiki.org > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
