> On Dec. 30, 2012, 9:19 a.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, line 2080 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/2/?file=102889#file102889line2080> > > > > Is it really required to call testAddAccounts() here? I imagine this is > > the least effort to setup the ground for your test, but I'd rather extract > > some part of testAddAccounts() (it tests more than a single scenario, so > > this should not be a problem) into a new test and use that one. > > Marko Käning wrote: > I used the same approach for the test case as back then for > MyMoneyFile::hasMatchingOnlineBalance()! > > Other tests also make use of testAddAccounts() which is why I thought it > was advisable to do so. (I also thought it would be better to re-use code > which is tested in itself.) > > Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > You're of course right that reusing code is good, and I'm not trying to > convince you to create a new helper method _just_ for the purpose of the new > test. I also understand why you chose to use testAddAccounts() - that's the > fastest way to write the test. > > But I don't think this is the best approach. Don't treat this personally > - I also think that using testAddAccounts() should be revised in other tests > as well, let me explain why: > testAddAccounts() tests several different behavious - around 5, from a > brief look at it. Creating an account and verifying it's been created > properly is one behaviour, the one you need in your test. But > testAddAccounts() does far more than that - it tests 4 more behavious, and > none of these are desirable from the perspective of your test. Yet, they are > executed upon testAddAccounts() call. > > My proposal is to extract the part of testAddAccounts() which creates the > first account into a new test method (say testAddAccountSuccessfully(), or > sth like that), and reuse that test in testAddAccounts() and your own. Sorry > if I didn't make that point clear previously.
OK, Lukacz, I know where you are coming from. But I guess, as you said as well, this will require an overhaul of many tests! > On Dec. 30, 2012, 9:19 a.m., Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp, lines 2105-2108 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/2/?file=102889#file102889line2105> > > > > I'd split it into two test functions - you're testing two independent > > cases after all. > > Marko Käning wrote: > I actually had 3 test cases encapsulated in one test in review 103264 > which was said to be fine back then, which is why I followed the same > strategy here. > > Łukasz Maszczyński wrote: > In KMM you can see a lot of test methods testing several behaviors at > once, that's true. However, in my opinion it's not the best approach possible. > > A quote from developerforce.com explains really well why this should be > avoided: > "Your unit tests should only test one aspect of your code at a time, so > that it is easy to understand the purpose of each unit test. Properly > written, and well-decomposed unit tests are an excellent source of > documentation. This may mean that you will need to write multiple unit tests > in order to fully exercise one method." > Good point. I'll think about these two issues. - Marko ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/#review24223 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 29, 2012, 10:05 p.m., Marko Käning wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 29, 2012, 10:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for KMymoney. > > > Description > ------- > > The homepage accounts tables now show a different icon if there are > transactions for an account after the last online transaction - highlighting > for the user the necessity to download transactions in order to verify the > account status. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfile.h c43977ce7413eee2bc1e0a841fa548314c71e9df > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfile.cpp 6640356d5e07152f8eb4aecff23d62ee8d853dbd > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.h 5551fa94b6b34022c8e91c0301847d5479e6b1f2 > kmymoney/mymoney/mymoneyfiletest.cpp > feb9d57ecd7156fc1eea189a905fa797aeae9183 > kmymoney/views/khomeview.cpp c79337176b7265cabe15cad4972bc719e797af7c > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107619/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Built and ran application and test cases successfully. > > > Thanks, > > Marko Käning > >
_______________________________________________ KMyMoney-devel mailing list KMyMoney-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
