sebb wrote:
> On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 23/11/2009, sebb wrote:
>> >> The JUnit tests produce a lot of output, even if the tests are
>> successful.
>> >>
>> >> Is there really any need to print stack traces in the following method?
>> >>
>> >> TestSharedPoo
On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 23/11/2009, sebb wrote:
> >> The JUnit tests produce a lot of output, even if the tests are successful.
> >>
> >> Is there really any need to print stack traces in the following method?
> >>
> >> TestSharedPoolDataSource.PoolTest.run(
sebb wrote:
> On 23/11/2009, sebb wrote:
>> The JUnit tests produce a lot of output, even if the tests are successful.
>>
>> Is there really any need to print stack traces in the following method?
>>
>> TestSharedPoolDataSource.PoolTest.run()
>>
>> I propose to comment them out.
>>
>> Similarl
On 23/11/2009, sebb wrote:
> The JUnit tests produce a lot of output, even if the tests are successful.
>
> Is there really any need to print stack traces in the following method?
>
> TestSharedPoolDataSource.PoolTest.run()
>
> I propose to comment them out.
>
> Similarly, the test case TestMa
The JUnit tests produce a lot of output, even if the tests are successful.
Is there really any need to print stack traces in the following method?
TestSharedPoolDataSource.PoolTest.run()
I propose to comment them out.
Similarly, the test case TestManual.testLogWriter() generates a lot of output