Hey Dhanji, I'm checking the Stage.TOOL javadoc but got confused by this:
"We need binding meta data but not a functioning Injector. Do not inject members of instances." What does it do really? It just checks if the dependencies are correct? :S On Sep 9, 4:42 pm, "Dhanji R. Prasanna" <[email protected]> wrote: > If your modules have logic you should definitely unit test them. If you just > want to ensure the bindings are ok, write a small unit test that boots up > the injector in Stage.TOOL. This wont instantiate anything but will still > check to make sure the bindings are correct. > Dhanji. > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Pablo Fernandez <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > I actually test some modules indirectly by creating the injector in > > the tests... this is for some unit tests where I could not fully > > decouple the classes. > > > So, bottom line is: there's no point in *unit* testing modules, right? > > > Thanks for your reply > > > On Sep 9, 2:17 pm, Sam Berlin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You can indirectly test modules by using integration tests where you > > create > > > an Injector using your modules and ensure that pieces of the program > > work. > > > As far as testing any logic in the modules... there ideally would be no > > > logic in the modules, just bindings. Logic should be separated into > > > different modules that are installed in different circumstances. > > > > Sam > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Pablo Fernandez > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I'm running my tests with a code coverage tool and for the only > > > > classes I get 0% coverage are my Guice Modules. No big deal, but just > > > > lead me to think... > > > > > Is there any benefit in testing Guice Modules? I've tried to test one > > > > and that implied: > > > > > 1) using Module interface instead of AbstractModule class (code > > > > readability decreased a bit) > > > > 2) mocking the hell out of the binder (so much that I don't really > > > > know if I'm actually testing something) > > > > > In fact after doing this, the test and the module look pretty much the > > > > same... > > > > > isn't this just fancy code duplication? has anyone tested their own > > > > modules? is there any outcome in doing that (aside reaching 100% code > > > > coverage)? > > > > > Thanks --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
