cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The Butterfly Manifesto (was Re: [RT] Spring+JMX == Real Blocks?)
Date Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:18:42 GMT
Ugo Cei wrote:

> Il giorno 21/lug/04, alle 13:37, Leo Sutic ha scritto:
> 
>> 1. "Butterfly is an experiment aiming to implement a (simplified)
>> Cocoon clone but based on Spring instead of Hibernate" Don't you mean:
>> "based on Spring instead of Avalon"
> 
> 
> Of course. Typo corrected.
> 
>> 2. "Strive for 100% unit test coverage" A bit of a red herring. You
>> don't want code coverage as much as state coverage. For example:
>>
>>     /** Divides two numbers. If b == 0, returns 0. */
>>     public static void divide (int a, int b) { return a/b; }
>>
>> Test:
>>
>>     public void testDivide () { assert divide (4, 2) == 2 };
>>
>> Which doesn't test the case where b == 0.
> 
> 
> Agreed, but even if we cannot prove that code is correct with unit tests 
> alone, we can at least hope that - statistically - code that has 100% 
> test coverage will have less bugs than code that has 10% test coverage. 
> Unfortunately, my impression is that Cocoon is now at the lower end of 
> the spectrum.

Ugo,

tests help but don't really buy us anything: have a community that is 
strong and diverse enough to do the regression testing for us.

Let's not mix concerns: cocoon has few tests, agreed, but this has 
nothing to do with the architecture.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message