>
> My idea is that when creating a fuse you should add TWO sets of cfparams
> instead of just one. One at the top of the file and one at the bottom.
> The idea is that the fusecoder would put their code in between the "in"
> and the "out" attributes. The "In Attributes" would verify that
> attributes were passed into the fuse. The "Out Attributes" would verify
> that attributes were created from within the fuse. Take a look:
[I'm piping in since I got chided for being quiet the last month]
isn't this redundant? If the Out attributes are not correctly passed out
then they will be caught as such at the next XFA (which is presumably the
point). Yes, testing on the outward journey is an extra layer of checking
with virtually no overhead, I totally agree with that. But it has nothing
to do with the *current* fuse, but rather with the *next* fuse--so it should
be checked by (only) the next fuse. (If fusebox were doing more module calls
instead of includes
then I might be of a different mind on this)
Otherwise it would mean that it would
be possible, not that you would do this, to edit one fuse and somehow
"break" the second fuse--the second one would not really be broken but you'd
have to open up both fuses to check the code.
I wonder if the Test Harness concept could be extended to check not only the
inputs but also the outputs. That is where the extra checking should occur.
Also, Steve mentioned using "Assumptions" which is not a word reference I've
heard lately. Is that the same thing as Hal's "Assertions" ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
