On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lex Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:53 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Finally, it looks like we are not testing StringBuilder at all -- since >> StringBuffer no longer delegates to StringBuilder, I think it needs to be >> tested as well to make sure no cut-and-paste error slips in. A related >> question -- would it not be better to have code generate one version from >> the other rather than rely on manually keeping them in sync? > > The idea of StringBuilderTest is to be thorough enough to detect these > cut-and-paste errors. Mainly, it seems like we need to make sure that > all the APIs exist, that they call the right thing in the > implementation, and that they pass the arguments in the right order.
Correction -- that's method testStringBuilder(), within StringBufferTest. -Lex --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
