[snip]
Simon Nash wrote:
I would like to keep the "split" structure as it currently is
rather than make a last minute change just before the 0.90 RC
without opportunity for discussion. (I'm on a plane tomorrow so
I won't have any email access all day.) I am fine with the
proposed renaming of the samples as suggested:
- echo-binding to echo-binding-extension
- echo-binding-appl to echo-binding
- implementation-crud to implementation-crud-extension
- implementation-crud-client to implementation-crud
Adding the "extension" suffix to the extension samples makes the
purpose of these samples clearer and solves the awkwardness over
how to describe the non-extension code.
Done under revision r547139.
[snip]
Testing that our sample client doesn't fail with an exception is
useful to us and may deserve a test in our integration test suite (if
we think that having a proper unit test case testing the bits and
pieces in that module is not good enough), but I don't thing that
it's interesting to keep it in the sample itself, as it's not going
to teach anything to an application developer looking at the sample,
and doesn't look like a "normal" unit test case.
Yes, agreed that this does not really belong in the samples. I would be
inclined to put this test code in itest/samples, just to have the build
confirm automatically that all the sample clients actually do run. It's
good to have equivalent unit tests as well, but the samples are so
visible
that I think it's worth testing them explicitly.
[snip]
This is still open. +1 to that suggestion, we do not pollute the samples
themselves with this kind of testing, we need to add new tests under
sca/itest/samples that verify that the samples' main methods do not fail.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
