On 6/15/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ant elder wrote: > On 6/15/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <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. >> > >> I volunteer to produce a patch for this. I'd like to get this into 0.91. > > > > If all this is going to do is check a sample main method runs without an > exception does it really matter if it gets in 0.91 or not? > The main benefit of getting it into 0.91 is to remove this test code from the sample itself, as it is making the sample slightly confusing.
Maybe I've misunderstood whats being proposed, which testcases are being changed? ...ant
