Hello Kay, >> Generally, this looks correct for using EMF without the Eclipse >> infrastructure. It is preferrable to write code like that in the form >> of a unit test, though. > Yes. But does unit testing not rely on knowledge of the expected outcome from > the SUT to check the real one against? > It was just a starting point, a prototype, a 'feasability study' to find out > if > I'm able to handle a reqif file without ProR. I didn't know what to expect.
You're certainly right with your reply. This was just a recommendation, and has little to do with your "real" question. But since you asked, let me elaborate: Because your code contained four "tests" (albeit without asserts), it feels natural to wrap them in unit tests. You have an implicit assert: Running the test must not throw an Exception. Rewriting it as a unit tests makes development a lot easier: You immediate see the results of the four test cases, and if an Exception is thrown, the test is marked as failed. You also see the stack trace directly in Eclipse, and run just one test alone. > Put it into the test suite, please :-) ... And of course, that is another reason for confirming a bug with a test: Once added to the test suite, this problem will never pop up again without us noticing. Yes, I was planning on adding it. Hope this helps! Best, - Michael -- *Michael Jastram* +49 (162) 274 83 94 http://jastram.de Geschäftsführer Formal Mind GmbH http://formalmind.com Wissenschaftler Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf http://www.stups.uni-duesseldorf.de <http://www.stups.uni-duesseldorf.de/w/Michael_Jastram> Vorsitzender rheinjug e.V. http://rheinjug.de Project Lead Eclipse Requirements Modeling Framework http://eclipse.org/rmf
_______________________________________________ rmf-dev mailing list rmf-dev@eclipse.org http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rmf-dev
