On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:27, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? >
When did I claim otherwise? > > ...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. > With a one-line test. Are we really going to keep arguing about that? > > > 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? > It's the one-liner shown above. Unless you also believe I need a machine to write that too... > > > 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. > The debugger is interactive and requires a lot of time in my part, the test runner, in my view, is just a build step. Not only that: in dynamic languages, it's THE ONLY step. 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.
