Konrad, isn't TestActorRef valuable for unit testing with actors? This
assumes the proper IT test coverage is there as well as an outer layer of
the onion.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:16:48 AM UTC-4, Akka Team wrote:
By interacting with them – same as normal Actors.
I would not
Hi Sean,
I personally am not a big fan of TestActorRef (others may disagree - this
may be a matter of taste...), as it changes the timing semantics of the
thing you're testing.
Of course it makes testing (in some cases) easier, but the sacrifice is
that you assume single-threaded execution,
which
Thank you. Your thoughts make sense.
On Friday, September 12, 2014 10:24:36 PM UTC+2, Akka Team wrote:
Hi Sean,
I personally am not a big fan of TestActorRef (others may disagree - this
may be a matter of taste...), as it changes the timing semantics of the
thing you're testing.
Of
I get where you're coming from. People may rely on test with TestActor ref
and not do the proper actor specs. Those IT specs are mandatory.
On Friday, September 12, 2014 4:24:36 PM UTC-4, Akka Team wrote:
Hi Sean,
I personally am not a big fan of TestActorRef (others may disagree - this
may
I get where you're coming from. People may rely on test with TestActor
ref and not do the proper actor specs. Those IT specs are mandatory.
Exactly, you’ve defined it way better than I did by going into the nitty-gritty
details actually :-)
--
Konrad 'ktoso' Malawski
hAkker @ typesafe
By interacting with them – same as normal Actors.
I would not encourage the use of TestActorRef actually - it is very
limiting (threading wise).
Simply ask the actor for what you want to know from it.
Also, there will be an specific Akka Persistence TestKit soon!
Here's the issue about it:
