Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 44943 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2006 01:05:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Oct 2006 01:05:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 4691 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2006 01:05:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 4637 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2006 01:05:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 4626 invoked by uid 99); 12 Oct 2006 01:05:06 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:05:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.237 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.237] (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.237) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:05:05 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s13so448112wxc for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:04:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=uR46mzp2F0VkVAK0MoeGjeuQSzX3W9JCncR36QR1b6ULjWLGshwYMP5d3tpJpctToo6Nevaaa2nCIA7SURhlT2WorA6TqNMzWzIZm7qDjRkela2fqhP+jtJ+pZFzYCdo67DLZ7qiwcGlCXnb41n5qIhc6CCvWR7bdErn0qHDhwQ= Received: by 10.70.16.6 with SMTP id 6mr1745503wxp; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.123.4 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4d0b24970610111804x7b6d2c4hba030a92f0d7e7a5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:04:44 +0800 From: "Andrew Zhang" To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib] [tests] Can anyone explain what these are for? In-Reply-To: <2c9597b90610110401t49429ca0ub672e39737815cd2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_40439_24175854.1160615084540" References: <200610101837.k9AIbU4a018191@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <3b3f27c60610101938v6ccd89d4i1418c03d2ab97b2d@mail.gmail.com> <3b3f27c60610102109m40778c8bwb4c0a012f20c3d6f@mail.gmail.com> <2c9597b90610110401t49429ca0ub672e39737815cd2@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_40439_24175854.1160615084540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 10/11/06, Alexei Zakharov wrote: > > Some tests for beans contained the code like this: > > <--- > public void testGetArguments() { > // Covered in the testcases for the constructor > } > > public void testGetMethodName() { > // Covered in the testcases for the constructor > } > <--- > > I just commented it out. I could simply delete it but decided that we > may need it in the future. When we finish with 1.5 and everybody will > have a lot of free time - we can get back to it and think again: do we > need to insert an additional test case here? Yes. My suggestion is marking these tests with "TODO". It's easy for remindering. Eventually, we'll decide whether removing the TODOs or writing more test code there. Thanks! 2006/10/11, Richard Liang : > On 10/11/06, Nathan Beyer wrote: > > Perhaps, but there are much better ways of determining that. From just > > reading the test code to code coverage tools. > > > > From my analysis, these were part of the large test contribution and > > indicated that there wasn't an explicit test for that method. In most > > cases, there were tests for these methods, either in other classes or > > in other methods of the class. > > Nathan, I agree ;-) > > > > > -Nathan > > > > On 10/10/06, Richard Liang wrote: > > > On 10/11/06, Nathan Beyer wrote: > > > > I've seen a few and I've deleted any that I've come across. I would > > > > say feel free to delete them too. I've also been deleting empty setup > > > > and teardown methods too. > > > > > > Please do not simply delete them. Maybe that means we are lack of the > > > test for some methods, for example "getInetAddress". > > > > > > > > > > > -Nathan > > > > > > > > On 10/10/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote: > > > > > These could be a result of copy/paste tests creation. > > > > > And I'm curious why it was written for the first time. :) > > > > > > > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > > > > > > > 2006/10/10, Mark Hindess : > > > > > > > > > > > > I've come across a couple of tests with things like: > > > > > > > > > > > > public void test_getInetAddress() { > > > > > > assertTrue("Used to test", true); > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone explain why we have these? -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, Andrew Zhang ------=_Part_40439_24175854.1160615084540--