On 9/27/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Rupert, I felt that too. Sometimes the pain that we go through in writing these tests upfront can help us a lot down the line. 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. I simply made a suggestion. We should all agree about how it is done and the timing. I am quite happy about the way this discussion is progressing. 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 > > > > > >
