4 ms·
> If you test this way you'll be sure to have a correct implementation for this dummy program. That's the point. If the dummy program fails then your implement
by fao_ 9y ago
> If you test this way you'll be sure to have a correct implementation for this dummy program.
That's the point. If the dummy program fails then your implementation is bad.
> Further, if the test fails you now have to try and figure out what component caused the failure.
Have you heard of logging?
> A unit test should test a specific unit; commonly a class. You should have unit tests for the interface of that unit (never private or even protected methods).
This is almost exactly what I suggested. I stated 'dummy programs' for individual tests because it's more modular and closer to actual usage than mocking. If your language has an equivalent, use that.
- alien_at_work 9y ago>Have you heard of logging? So your solution is to dig through log files to find the problem instead of read the unit test name(s) that demonstrate the failure? >This is almost exactly what I suggested. Well, it wasn't clear from your wording. It sounded like you were advocating integration testing instead of unit testing (which is a thing that people commonly do, so that's why I reacted to it).