On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:23, Vadim Chekan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:42 am, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 14:56, Vadim Chekan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Aug 12, 7:28 pm, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Seriously? > > > > > > Do you know what a unit test is? > > > > > Of course, it is a silver bullet which magically eliminates bugs. No? > > > I'm sure you know that no unit test gives any guarantee. It gives you > > > feeling that the app is in descent shape after changes, but nothing > > > more. > > > > No. Unit tests are what you use to avoid introducing new bugs AND > asserting > > correctness (among other things) > > In my BIG application, I automatically generate a small persistence test > for > > each entity (a modified ghostbuster). > > If, for example, a field name is wrong, I'll get a failing test. > > > > There's absolutely NO difference between what XML and FNH can do about > this. > > See my last point in this email too. > > Unit test help avoiding *some* bugs and they prove *some* correctness. > What I'm trying to say is that it is impossible to have full circle > unit tests. Even national aerospace laboratories can't achieve it. > They allow programmer to not be embarrassed when passing the app to > QA, but in no way they are substitution to the QA. > And when did I say otherwise? I never said tests are magic, only that they DO provide a way to catch bugs, because that's what they are for, as opposed to using FNH which, as a mapping tool, is no better than XML, and doesn't have catching bugs as a target. > > > > > Have you ever used a real refactoring tool (like R#)? > > > > > I state that xml editing is not easy. And your argument that it > > > requires (or is recommended) to use R# just proves my point. > > > > If you are a professional developer, you'll use the best available tools. > > Of course you can install the .NET SDK and work in Notepad if you want, > but > > then don't complain about C# editing being hard. > > Or you use programming techniques that yield reliable code :) > And what does that have to do with what I wrote? Or: how is FNH, *WHICH GENERATES XML INTERNALLY* more reliable than writing that XML myself? IMO, hand-written XML *IS* more reliable because it's more documented and consistent. > > > > Do you understand what Configuration.BuildSessionFactory does? > > > > > Builds session factory? :) What is your question really? > > > > It compiles the configuration. Just like csc.exe compiles C#. > > You said "Static check is safer then dynamic error". And that's not the > > point, because the first test I write for a NH solution is the > > "ConfigurationIsValid", which is essentially a build-time check. > > Are you saying that NH's configuration builder will catch all errors > which FNH would catch? > Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, FNH internally generates XML in order to validate it with the NH mapping schema. Diego -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
