2006/4/17, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In addition, I want to share what I do when testing exceptions.
>
> I created the following basic abstract class:
>
> protected abstract class ExceptionalCase {
> private Class clazz;
> private String msg;
>
> public abstract void exceptionalAction() throws Exception;
>
> public ExceptionalCase() {
> }
>
> public ExceptionalCase(String msg, Class clazz) {
> this.msg = msg;
> this.clazz = clazz;
> }
>
> public Class expectedExceptionClass() {
> return clazz;
> }
>
> public String expectedExceptionMessage() {
> return msg;
> }
> }
>
>
> and the following utility test method:
>
> protected void testExceptionalCase(final ExceptionalCase ec) {
> try {
> ec.exceptionalAction();
> fail("Exceptional case was not detected!");
> } catch (final Exception e) {
> if (ec.expectedExceptionClass() != null) {
> if
> (!ec.expectedExceptionClass().isAssignableFrom(e.getClass())) {
> fail("Exception of wrong type " + e.getClass() + "
> is produced!");
> }
> }
Why it is that complicated?
Why one have jump over utility methods in different classes or even folders to
understand what a 5-line test does?
testSomething() throw OtherException {
try {
ec.do_something_exceptional();
fail("NullPointerException was not thrown!");
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
//expected
}
}
Let's keep simple things simple
Thanks,
Mikhail
> if (ec.expectedExceptionMessage() != null) {
> assertEquals("Wrong exception message",
> ec.expectedExceptionMessage(),
> e.getMessage());
> }
> }
> }
>
>
> Besides, I created several 'concrete' ExceptionalCases like:
>
> protected abstract class NullPointerCase extends ExceptionalCase {
> public Class expectedExceptionClass() {
> return NullPointerException.class;
> }
> }
>
> So, every time when I want to test that "NPE and only NPE" is produced
> I do the following:
>
> testExceptionalCase(new NullPointerCase() {
> public void exceptionalAction() throws Exception {
> //some action which should produce NPE
> }
> });
>
> It doesn't care about the message.
>
> If I need to test some particular message as well as type of exception
> I should either override expectedExceptionMessage() or use an
> appropriate constructor to create ExceptionalCase like:
>
> testExceptionalCase(new ExceptionalCase("expected message",
> NullPointerException.class) {
> public void exceptionalAction() throws Exception {
> //some action which should produce NPE
> }
> });
>
> I believe that is convenient and Object-Oriented approach.
>
> Wishes,
> --
> Anton Avtamonov,
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>
> On 4/17/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/17/06, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, the second issue, should we be checking for messages/descriptions
> > > in exception
> > > tests, even to match what Harmony throws? If we do then our api tests
> > > wont pass on other implementations.
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > As I said already I don't see any huge reasons to check the messages
> > (probably for not being empty only). However I suppose sometimes it
> > could be necessary. I'm pretty sure we will face many cases when we
> > need to deviate from RI (it was discussed already in other threads).
> >
> > What I propose is to use for tests some utility method like
> > isHarmony(). It will act as a 'formal' indicator of all our
> > deviations.
> >
> > For this particular situation is should be something like:
> > if (TestUtilities.isHarmony()) {
> > assertEquals("some message", e.getMessage())
> > }
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Anton Avtamonov,
> > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
