db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [junit] Move JUnit base/utility classes???
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:40:00 GMT
Kristian Waagan wrote:

> Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Kristian Waagan wrote:
>> <>
>>> Hi,
>>> I still have a question regarding the placement of JUnit tests. I have
>>> brought this up before, but got very little response (I did get some,
>>> see below).
>>> Do we want to support [unit] testing of package private classes?
>> Maybe it is sufficient to support testing the public methods of public
>> classes ?
> Hi Andreas,
> In my opinion, it is not.
> There are some quite complex classes which are not part of the public
> API. Testing these indirectly through the public API is a lot of work,
> and it might be hard to construct all variations/codepaths.

I think Andreas meant testing a class through its public methods and
interfaces, not Derby's public API. E.g. a module implementation can be
tested through its api from org.apache.derby.iapi. That should be pretty
direct testing that is able to cover all of the code in the module.

> I recently experienced this problem. I "solved" it by writing my own
> unit test and placing it in the appropriate package, which was not
> contributed to the community. But maybe this is more of an exception
> than the general case. The existing code base does not have this kind of
> tests.

I must have missed this test being discussed on the list, can you
provide a link to the archives so I can see the kind of issues you were

> If the consensus is not to support unit tests of this kind, I will
> either write indirect tests instead or test less of the code. My worry
> is the latter approach...

One argument could be that if you can't test a code through its public
api then there is something wrong with the code, but maybe that's
optimistic. That's why I'd like to see the example you hit.


View raw message