[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-815?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16825019#comment-16825019
]
Mr TheSegfault commented on MINIFICPP-815:
------------------------------------------
[~aboda] I see that you created MINIFICPP-818. I think I created some confusion
when first creating this ticket as more of a focus of PutFile's test – but that
was just an example to show that FileUtils needs unit tests.
I don't think that's MINIFICPP-818 necessary if we execute this ticket
eventually. My major concern was that we really don't test FileUtils as a unit
( which is my fault, because it started as a place to move previously tested
functionality too )...but as the code base grows and more people come to it
regression testing will be important on that as a unit as you suggested, above.
I don't think MINIFICPP-818 is necessary since we have time to implement this
and build trust in all of FileUtils again..but I'll leave it up to you on
whether you want to close 818 or continue with it.
Honestly I think I'll submit a PR for this ticket to start it off and if you
have time you can do the same eventually.
> Add FileUtils Tests
> -------------------
>
> Key: MINIFICPP-815
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-815
> Project: Apache NiFi MiNiFi C++
> Issue Type: Test
> Reporter: Mr TheSegfault
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 0.7.0
>
>
> Formerly titled:
> [Dog fooded test should use a separate test function to validate the lamdba
> function|https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/531/files#diff-fda52d649a6d955419ada205e8dfeea7R376]
> [
> https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/531/files#diff-fda52d649a6d955419ada205e8dfeea7R376]
> is a dog fooded test.
>
> We should probably make a FileUtils suite of tests as a focal point than
> specifically addressing the above class's tests.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
