> I understand your point. The jbosstest
> does only end-to-end testing, but may
> still provide some (a lot) of confidence
> in the code.
> My problem here is probably that I have
> never liked unit tests much. Subsystem
> test maybe, but not the (IMHO braindead)
> "for each class written, write a set of
> tests that use this class in any possible
> way".
> Such fine granularity tests take a lot of
> time to write. Time that IMHO could be
> better used by writing subsystem tests,
> end-to-end tests and properly documenting
> the external interface of classes.
>
> Think of the effort it would take to do
> a *full* unit test on a class like
> org.jboss.ejb.plugins.TxInterceptorBMT.
You are right. Unit testing at the class level for each class takes a lot
of efforts and I am not sure if it is actually effective to test a given
class in so many different ways. It is better to focus on "functional" unit
tests or "scenario" unit tests which may contain one or more classes.
There is no point in providing a test suite which calls all the methods of a
class in all kind of orders.
However, since a code change implies a change (or addition of a new) to an
existing feature/function/usage scenarios, bug fix, I am hoping that
developers would consider providing a test case or 2 to test their changes
and help ensure that the changes won't be undo by other developers.
Anh
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
