V
VisionSet
Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
I actually think unit testing has a very localised effect on
the running of a project, and needn't impact on other aspects of the
life-cycle.
VisionSet said:mmm, depends when you write the tests I suppose.
Thomas Hawtin said:Together with the code is traditional.
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
Mike said:The JUnit approach (that the first failure ends the test) seems unproductive
to me. At times it's apt, but there are other times where I'd like to
continue the test and generate a report of all the failures rather than only
be told about the first one.
Andrew McDonagh said:Why?
Normally any subsequent failures are just by productions of the initial
failure. So, fixing the first failures usually fixes all of the others.
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
Chris Uppal said:Code changes. Right from the start, it changes a lot. (I'm not talking about
changes in response to changing requirements -- that's a different issue). IMO
that change is a necessary part of getting a properly working and maintainable
system. Tests, quite obviously, add "weight" to that, in the sense that any
test for a piece of functionality that is changed will have to change too. If
you refactor stuff (and you've got any tests written) then you'll have to
refactor them too. Tests, of any sort, inhibit the natural process of change
as a software design grows
Adam said:1. It is hard to get an entire project to adopt JUnit if not everyone
believes in automated unit tests.
2. It is sometimes (often, in our case) difficult to write a *unit* test for
each class in isolation.
3. Doing the work to get adequate test coverage from a unit test suite is
generally a thankless job -- unless management buys in to the notion that it
is worthwhile and makes the time to get it done.
VisionSet said:Does anyone have anything negative to say about using JUnit or a similar
approach in the overall lifecycle of their project?
Ian said:I only write code in my spare time, so take this accordingly. My main
objection to the JUnit "philosophy" is that it does nothing to make
testing non-observable behavior easier. Per the JUnit FAQs, they think
that only observable behavior should be unit tested most of the time. I
simply don't agree with this.
Andrew said:What do you mean by 'non observable behavior'?
All code should had some effect upon the system else by definition that
code is not doing anything and should be deleted.
Thomas said:The behaviour may be difficult to observe. For instance, if there is a
cache of some intermediate result, you'd have to do some performance
testing to check.
Tom Hawtin
Thomas Hawtin said:If you've got management who consider unit testing gold plating... then
you've probably got worse problems.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.