You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to issues@maven.apache.org by "Lukas Theussl (JIRA)" <ji...@codehaus.org> on 2007/11/14 14:53:25 UTC

[jira] Closed: (DOXIA-187) Use AbstractSinkTest in DocBookBookSinkTest

     [ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA-187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Lukas Theussl closed DOXIA-187.
-------------------------------

      Assignee: Lukas Theussl
    Resolution: Fixed

I re-wrote the test. You can always add additional unit tests if you want.

> Use AbstractSinkTest in DocBookBookSinkTest
> -------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DOXIA-187
>                 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA-187
>             Project: Maven Doxia
>          Issue Type: Test
>          Components: Book
>    Affects Versions: 1.0-alpha-9
>            Reporter: Dave Syer
>            Assignee: Lukas Theussl
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 1.0-beta-1
>
>
> Lukas: the DocBookBookSinkTest should be written the same way as 
> DocBookSinkTest, ie extends AbstractSinkTest (not AbstractSinkTestCase).
> Dave: I'm not so sure it's a good idea, but I'll put it in JIRA anyway.  The AbstractSinkTest would just test the base class again (which has already been tested in the docbook module).  It would be better to have a real unit test for the BookSink which didn't depend on the base class behaviour at all.  Could be achieved by adopting a delegate pattern for the BookSink instead of extending the DocBookSink - but is it worth the effort when there is a regression test that covers the book extensions pretty well?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira