Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-50566-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 63123 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2003 12:39:21 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 2003 12:39:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 75344 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2003 12:39:15 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 75275 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2003 12:39:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@cocoon.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received: (qmail 74995 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2003 12:39:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.88)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 2003 12:39:11 -0000
Received: from media.demon.co.uk ([80.177.14.141])
	by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 1AGHVf-00015O-0U
	for dev@cocoon.apache.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 12:39:11 +0000
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:39:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [RT] Unit testing and CocoonUnit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jeremy Quinn <jeremy@media.demon.co.uk>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3FA3EBAB.1000001@upaya.co.uk>
Message-Id: <8E862A97-0D31-11D8-9ECD-0003935AD2EE@media.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


On Saturday, November 1, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Upayavira wrote:

<snip wot="really interesting stuff">

>       String generatorXML = response.getPipelineXML(0);
>       String transformedXML = response.getPipelineXML(1);
>

If I understand this correctly .... you are referring to elements on 
the pipeline via an index.

Are you sure that is such a great idea?

If you re-implement a pipeline, you would have to re-write your tests 
.... which seems to be contrary to the whole point of pipeline testing 
.....

Would it not be better to refer to parts of a pipeline by their 
view-label?

regards Jeremy