<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/28/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Lukas Renggli</b> <<a href="mailto:renggli@gmail.com">renggli@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The big advantage of this approach is that you already have an<br>instance of your model, and since this is self you are also able to<br>directly access the i-vars what can be very useful for some kind of<br>(internal) tests:
<br><br>OrderedCollection>>beginOfTest<br> <begin><br> self add: 1; add: 2<br><br>Point>>test<br> <test><br> self assert: lastIndex - firstIndex = 1.<br> self assert: (array includes: 1).
<br> self assert: (array includes: 2).<br> ...</blockquote><div><br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20060328;21355600"> <meta name="CHANGED" content="16010101;0">
<dl><dt>For me isn't a good idea to do "white box" testing.</dt><dt>
In the OrderedCollection example given, I don't care how the items
are handled in the collection object, and I couldn't find any good
reason to make a test like that.</dt><dt>
Because if I do a re factoring, maybe I have to modify all the tests
written in that way :(</dt><dd><br>
</dd>
</dl></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Another idea I saw in a Java testing framework is the possibility to<br>group-tests, so you can add an annotation like <group: #windows> or
<br><group: #slow> and the test runner would allows to run (or filter out)<br>specific groups.</blockquote><div><br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20060328;21355600">
<meta name="CHANGED" content="16010101;0">
<p>I like the idea of test groups (that's I was trying to say in my
previous mail :) ).<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 (Linux)"><meta name="CREATED" content="20060328;21355600">
<meta name="CHANGED" content="16010101;0">
<dl><dt>But I don't like the idea of having "annotations"... I hate them
:P
</dt><dt>Because an annotation for me is like an "attribute", it's
only data without behavior, but in the system is necessary to take
decisions based on this "attribute value".</dt><dt>
For example if the "test group" is reified, you can have platform
specific tests and skip the tests that doesn't applies to the platform,
this decision to skip the test could be made in the test group. (anyway
a TestSuite is a "test group", the problem for me is that SUnit builds
the "all tests" test suite collecting #allSubclasses of TestCase, maybe
if the construction of the "all tests" is a little more "intelligent"
we can have "test groups" without adding annotations to the test
methods)<br>
</dt></dl></p></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I wonder where I can find some documentation about SUnitToo, I am<br>
really interested to see what they did there. I started to play a bit<br>with the existing framework and see what tools could be useful ...</blockquote><div><br>
This is the first time that I heard about SUnitToo... I will take a look, thanks :) <br>
<br>
</div>Cheers,<br>
Diego.-</div>