Are you saying that our JUnit tests shouldn't include testing Torque functionality ?
Well, they don't. We're not testing Torque-logic itself.
But the (business) logic we're testing is dependent on certain database circumstances that we create using Torque during the tests, and is using Torque as part of the business logic. In this scenario I'd don't like to use mock objects instead of real Torque objects because when the application will be running in real life, it will be using the Torque objects as well, and thus I want to be sure that my application together with Torque is running as expected. Anyway, that's what I was trying to say in my previous mail.
For example, if want to test if creating a Contract fails when there already is another Contract active, I first create an active Contract (using Torque logic underneath) , then create another Contract (using Torque logic underneath) and assert the second creation failed.
gr. Michel
Jeffrey D. Brekke wrote:
Sounds like your testing factory should be in the torque project, testing itself.
If you are comfortable that torque doesn't have any errors, then maybe we wouldn't feel like we have to test access through torque to the db in all our application tests. Unless you are also really testing things other than your code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
