[Testing]Re: Class + Class Helper Pattern

[Ole Ersoy <ol...@yahoo.com>]

Emmanuel,

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

HuH?

Anyways - I'm going to break down the 100% method
testing stuff in the guide so that it will be simple
to  understand.  It really is simple and leads to high
quality code.

There's already a pretty good breakdown of it in that
JUnit thread I sent posted earlier:

http://www.nabble.com/100---Method-Testing-and-Generating-Unit-Tests-t2902785.html

I'm going to summarize this in the guide.

The guide is also going to be the basis for a test
generator project, revolving around the principles
discussed in the thread.

I anticipate this type of project and this way of
coding will become popular once the project gets
rolling.

Anyways, it's just a heads up.  I think future
contributors will see this as a simplified structured
way to add high quality code to the project (And other
projects), also simplifying the current code base when
doing review contributions.

Cheers,
- Ole


--- Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ole,
> 
> I will give you my opinion about unit tests and
> method protections. Do not
> consider it anything else than my personnal opinion,
> based on my own feeling
> and 25 years of coding experience (not always
> happy).
> 
> On 2/13/07, Ole Ersoy <ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Guys,
> > <snip>
> 
> 
> You'll notice that I used a
> > Class + ClassHelper pattern.
> >
> > So I can have all the methods public on the
> Helper,
> > thus I could easily test them all.
> >
> > I asked others one the JUnit list if there are any
> > security risks to having all public methods.
> >
> > They said not really.
> 
> 
> if you ask people who never add any accident driving
> without a seat belt,
> they will tell you that the risk is very limited.
> private methods is a kind
> of seat belt you like to have when you hit a wall.
> 
> IMHO, trying to cover all the code with test (ie,
> 100% test coverage) is
> useless, because it's simply impossible to guarante
> you will get a 100%
> coverage
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del)
> 
> The more that we can do is to do our best.
> 
> Now, that being said, about helper classes :
> 1) a method is private because we don't want to
> expose it to the public.
> When you write such methods, as you can't test them
> easily, you have to be
> very carefull. The parameters should be tested, and
> 'assert' is a good way
> to do so. At some point, ypou can also test those
> methods simply by testing
> the public method which use it.
> 2) having 2 classes instead of one drive you to
> double the number or bugs.
> This is mathematic.
> 3) Sometime, tests are simply wrong. You may have to
> double check the tests,
> and fix them if needed. If you have a classhelper 
> in between, you may have
> to check two classes instead of one (the test plus
> the helper class). This
> is adding some burden.
> 4) Having two classes to maintain is really
> problematic. The more classes
> you have, the more work you will have to do. All
> this work won't be put into
> the single class, so one can think that this
> helperclass drives the
> developper to loose focus on what is really
> important.
> 5) If the developper has choose to declare a method
> as private, public,
> protected, or with a default protection, it is
> because he sometime has good
> reason. This is somehow the basis of OO design. I
> don't want to loose this,
> I don't want to go back to C or, worse, Basic.
> 6) From a user friendliness point of view, I really
> like to see at first
> glance which are the public methods of a class (they
> are green in Eclipse).
> 
> Ok, now, this is not only my opinion. It's also
> somthing I will push
> strongly if voted. I must tell that I will veto such
> a decision (to have all
> methods public) if asked. Of course, if i'm the only
> one to veto such a
> decision on the project, I will dismiss, naturally.
> I'm not threaten anyone,
> I'm just saying that I don't think we should change
> the way we are coding. I
> try to be pragmatic : we are writing an Ldap Server,
> not a giant unit test
> system around an LdapServer. We are already have
> somthing like 3 000 tests,
> and we add a few every single day, I'm confortable
> with it.
> 
> Trying to reach perfection is insane. Even God can't
> do everything perfect :
> he created mankind :) (ok, for people like me who
> don't believe in God,
> think about the Chaos Theory... )
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> -- 
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097