> It's got nothing to do with unit testing. This isn't a test you can I know :-) But it's basically the same thing, code in comments.
> I realise that declaring complicated unit tests as I suggested in my > previous mail is virtually impossible, since setting up a test and > running it involves a fair amount of code that can't be generalised in > such a way that it fits into javadoc tags. (Unless of course some out- > of-the-box-thinker tells me otherwise). Agree. > What we _could_ do is to let XDoclet generate skeletons that > programmers can use as a starting point for their own tests. A lot of > IDEs have this feature built in. This means that if you start editing > these tests, you shouldn't generate skeletons with XDoclet again, as > they will overwrite the modified tests. I realise that this is against > the general XDoclet philosophy, but it could still be useful. Anyone > else think so? Putting a one-time @tag in code is not a good idea. You can simply use the coming-soon template-engine's template feature and generate testsuite/etc based on a template. Integrate it with your IDE, invoke it and it's generated. Ara. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
