That's insane. Does the Spec require a specific call sequence?
Certainly not!
2006/9/15, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While investigating one of the failed tests from the beans module
> (PersistenceDelegateTest#*) I have discovered that the test is doing a
> reverse engineering in fact. It passes some worm-like object to public
> API method and then analyzes the calling stacktrace of each of its
> methods by means of
>
> StackTraceElement[] eles = (new Throwable()).getStackTrace();
> if (eles[i].getClassName().equals(…) &&
> eles[i].getMethodName().equals(..)) {…}
>
> In that way, to enable this test we need to rewrite our code and make
> it identical to RI's (at least in respect to the stack trace). Such
> testing technique may be applied to many parts of Java API, not only
> beans. Of course I can imagine some user application doing this but
> such people should probably know what they do.
>
> Personally I don't like such methods of testing and vote for
> refactoring of these tests. Other opinions? Thoughts?
That's insane. Does the Spec require a specific call sequence?
geir
>
> Thanks,
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
