On my side I don't think we really need a rule on this. It's just good to know about new stuff, thanks.
Also I'm not a big fan of adding a dependency just for that (but it's just a -0). On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:54 AM, vinc...@massol.net <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
