On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:49, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Unit tests test for 'a' situation to be correct, so they prove that
> the code works for 'a' situation, namely the situation specified by the
> input. You refered to unit tests in the context of xml, as in: 'I can rely
> on unit tests to know that the xml mappings are ok'. Unless you write a lot
> of tests (read: every possible scenario), it's hard to prove you actually
> do
> cover all bases with your unit tests. I think that's what Vadim tried to
> say.
>
OK, let me explain what I mean by "the mappings are OK":
- They are considered valid by NHibernate (this is a single test)
- I can query every mapped entity, verify it loads, and check for ghosts (I
automatically generate a test method for each entity)
How would FNH help me here?
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> You really believe that? I truly hope not.
>
I'm sorry to disappoint you :-)
> Code generation works, if the input is valid and the pipeline is
> deterministic. As FNH through its api + compiler proves the input being
> valid, the pipeline is deterministic, which means that the output is valid.
> I.o.w.: you can't write invalid output with valid input, unless FNH is
> buggy
> (non-deterministic pipeline).
...Except FNH does not have a "validation pipeline". It relies on NH's XML
input.
Therefore, by using FNH, I don't gain *anything* on the validation front.
It's just a different syntax and different names for the exact same concepts
I map using XML (only it's incomplete).
For the record, I'm *not* talking about automapping, which DOES add value.
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.
