On Saturday 27 Jul 2013 23:48:19 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote: > On 07/27/2013 08:59 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > I don't have a big problem with this, as mockito appears to be > > packaged in debian. Best not to use a more recent version as > > installing java software can be problematic and insecure. > > The exact version is surely debatable… I only used 1.9.5 because I had > it lying around on my disk. If you tell me which version Debian > currently packages I can try that one and if it works for my current > tests (so far it’s only one, anyway), that’s great.
1.9.0. > > > Having said that, much of fred doesn't need mockups. How many of > > our tests actually need a Node? > > Looking at the serious mess that most of Fred’s code is I’m surprised > that so far you have been able to write tests at all without mocking > anything. The bookmark manager e.g. needs a NodeClientCore, a > USKManager, a UserAlertManager, and a Ticker, if I really wanted to > test it all. Sure, this is true in a few places. However generally it means we are violating layers and/or the interfaces are inadequate; we need to extract an interface, for reasons of code clarity and encapsulation as well as to make testing easier. (I mean, NodeClientCore !?!?!) It's also true that most of the higher level code simply isn't unit tested. > > >> Any opinions? (And: how exactly would we treat that? Simply add > >> it in build.properties and if somebody wants to run the test they > >> have to get it themselves?) > > Possibly, or make it optional? > > Is JUnit optional for testing? I don’t think so, and it shouldn’t be. > Neither should Mockito be should we decide to use it. Running only > half of the tests because you’re missing a lib is stupid at best, > dangerous at worst. Ok.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
