On 12 April 2013 07:30, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> I don't prefer one or the other. Both styles have their pros and cons. I
> just don't want to mix them.
>
>
I don't mind too much if they are mixed - but obviously not in the same
class.
> In JUnit 3 you would write something like:
>
> public voi
I don't prefer one or the other. Both styles have their pros and cons. I
just don't want to mix them.
In JUnit 3 you would write something like:
public void testMyMethodNull() throws Exception {
try {
bean.myMethod(null);
fail("Passing null to myMethod did not throw exception!");
On Apr 10, 2013, at 17:24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 10/04/2013 23:18, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
>> Yes, I agree (I liked that in BU2) but CSV still uses the old JUnit 3.x
>> convention of prefixing tests with "test". I'm not sure whether it's a good
>> idea to start mixing this styles. WDYT?
Le 10/04/2013 23:18, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> Yes, I agree (I liked that in BU2) but CSV still uses the old JUnit 3.x
> convention of prefixing tests with "test". I'm not sure whether it's a good
> idea to start mixing this styles. WDYT?
I agree. I always preferred the JUnit 3.x style anyway.
Hi Simo,
2013/4/10 Simone Tripodi
> just an idea: the `test` prefix on methods signature can be now omitted,
> since they are already marked with @Test
>
Yes, I agree (I liked that in BU2) but CSV still uses the old JUnit 3.x
convention of prefixing tests with "test". I'm not sure whether it's
just an idea: the `test` prefix on methods signature can be now omitted,
since they are already marked with @Test
my 0.0002 cents,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at
