I wouldn't be writing these tests just for themselves, but they do check if someone attempts to change the base class without knowing what is going on. Similarly for the member tests.
If these were perhaps created automatically, that would be OK, just. -- Regards, Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.) On 6 June 2011 12:02, Tristan Reeves <[email protected]> wrote: > ClassForUseInheritsBaseClass > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Heinrich Breedt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Just wondering, what is the name of the test? >> >> On Jun 5, 2011 5:06 PM, "Tristan Reeves" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi list, >> > I'll describe the situation in as little detail as possible. >> > >> > There's some code in which a class BaseClass, and a class ClassForUse : >> > BaseClass are defined. >> > >> > BaseClass is used in a unit test that calls its constructor with mocks. >> > ClassForUse is used in production with a 0-param constructor which calls >> > the >> > base constructor with hard-coded arguments. >> > >> > Forgetting (for now) any issues with all this (and to me there are >> > plenty), >> > we then find the following unit test: >> > >> > [Setup] >> > var _instance = new ClassForUse(); >> > >> > [Test] >> > Assert.That(_instance is BaseClass); >> > >> > ...to me this is totally insane. But I seem unable to articulate exactly >> > the >> > nature of the insanity. >> > >> > A little further on we have (pseudocode) >> > [Test] >> > Assert _instance._MemberOne is of type A >> > Assert _instance._MemberTwo is of type B >> > Assert _instance._MemberThree is of type C >> > >> > where the members are (if not for the tests) private members set by the >> > 0-param constructor which pushed them into the base constructor. (all >> > hard >> > coded). >> > >> > So...is this really insane, or is it I who am crazy?? It's made more >> > perplexing to me because the author of this code says it's all a natural >> > result of TDD. And I am far from a TDD expert. >> > >> > I would love some feedback about this Modus Operandi. esp. any refs. It >> > seems obviously wrong, and yet I am unable to come up with any >> > definitive >> > argument. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tristan.
