Maybe it would be a good time to have a quick chat about this. Perhaps we could arrange a Skype call.
Thanks Justin On 2013-01-23, at 3:18 PM, Antranig Basman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/01/2013 12:55, Justin Obara wrote: >> I guess I'm not clear on what this meant. >> >> "So my assessment is that the "onion of testing" which we necessarily depend >> on in case ii) isn't >> dangerously prejudiced by this new dependency. We can always stand to have >> better tests, but the area we >> most urgently need them isn't here - it's in the area of having more plain >> IoC tests - but this can wait >> until the implementation stabilises some more and we have a firm idea of >> what the IoC system is meant to do >> in each situation." >> >> Does that mean that there aren't enough plain jqunit test for the IoC >> portion of the framework? > > Not by a mile - but this awaits some measure of how much is "enough". The > current version of IoC has too many "dark corner" features that could > interact in unexpected ways ("mergeAllOptions", "default options", "alias", > "returnedOptions" etc.) that further inhibit good testing. The version > currently under development has fewer apparent features (those mentioned > previously will be removed) which in theory would make testing easier, > although it will have a more intricate workflow - which implies that there > will need to be a lot more of "white-box testing". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-box_testing > > Cheers, > A > > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work _______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
