> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 04:02, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Since there seems to be some confusion, this is the main test I
was
> > referring to:
> >
> > [Fact]
> > public void ConfigurationIsValid()
> > {
> > //call the method that creates the configuration and builds
the
> session
> > factory }
>
> useless. Even if this test succeeds, you have no idea if your
> xml is
> valid or not.
>
> If NH compiles it, it's valid. That's the only purpose of this test. It
can
> check well-formedness, schema, structure, names and semantic.
gee, then why did I got crashing queries when I ran them, but the
xml was valid? some magical ball hovering over my office, which influenced
the queries at runtime?
You know which O/R mapper actually does what you claim? EF. ;)
> ...Which is something FNH won't do by itself, and that was the whole
point.
I think what was claimed was that FNH lets you catch crap you can
only check for by running it. I don't see how you can magically get that
with text-based XML.
> Both are results of work done by a human which can be better
done by
> a machine, but heck, some people like the idea of doing work a
machine could
> do better...
>
> The machine is xunit. Why would that be better that csc?
ah, so xunit creates your tests? Out of the blue? Or did you write
extra code to get that working?
> What I don't understand is that you find the 'run the tests
to
> see
> if what I wrote is correct' is a valuable approach: it takes time,
> and if
> you screwed up during test writing, you're not going to be happy at
> runtime.
>
> Time? It's one click away. Just like the C# compiler.
So is a debugger, that doesn't make it the same thing.
FB
--
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.
