Rajith, I we are in agreement with you about the unit tests. The code will benefit from pure unit tests, and IMO, some of the dodgier aspects of locking AMQSession and the like, would certainly have found better solutions, if that code had been unit testable. I'm all for sorting this stuff out, and looking a code coverage on unit tests, etc. To give you an example of what a huge fan of the unit test + coverage approach I am, I have an AI library that I wrote, that is 100% covered (but of course still not 100% bug free, but getting to that coverage level uncovered so many little bugs it was worth it).
Moving the non-unit tests out of the way, will let us see more clearly what is needed. Rupert On 27/09/2007, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you very much. This kind of cynicism helps this project a lot. > I give up trying to explain it anymore. We can definitely continue to go > our > merry ways. > > Regards, > > Rajith > > On 9/27/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is a problem as people continue to write and run the wrong kind of > > > tests > > > under client and broker. > > > > > > > > I think we should all be grateful when people contribute tests, and if > we > > believe there are gaps (i.e. in micro-tests of individual emthods) then > > one > > should write them onself rather than complaining that other people > haven't > > :-) :-) > > > > -- Rob > > >
