that's a big gap. I guess its not so obvious because of the java reflection that's used to get to the methods in question. If you could go some way to fill in the gap that would be great.
Kelvin. On 19/12/2007, David Adcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The unit test case org.apache.tuscany.sdo.test.TypeConversionTestCase > exercises the getXXXX() methods on a DataObject, validating > type conversion functions. What is missing from this test, though, is > any conversion testing of the setXXXX() methods. This test suite uses > the set method to seed the primary type, but it doesn't attempt to set > the property using an alternative type. I was looking to add the test > case > I created for Tuscany-1935 and found this test hole. Does it make > sense to go ahead and augment TypeConversionTestCase to validate the > setXXXXX() methods as well? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
