[jbosscache-dev] poll: java tag for shortcut set up methods created only for UT purposes?

[Manik Surtani]

What I tend to do is to have such methods (or even class fields) as  
package protected.  In most cases, the unit test in question shares  
the same package name as the class being tested and would have access  
to class internals.

I don't agree with messaging and their thought that only public  
methods should be tested - this is black box testing, and while  
useful, is not the only form of testing that should occur IMO.  I  
think a certain degree of internal access can be useful when, for  
example, injecting mock objects into the class being tested to  
analyse behaviour of how internal fields are used by the class.

Regarding tagging, I agree with Brian that unless there is some  
consolidated effort to standardise an annotation or something to this  
effect so it doesn't appear in IDE drop downs, this is relatively  
meaningless.  Public interfaces and helper methods on implementation  
classes makes sense where interfaces make sense - but beyond that, I  
just think using pretty explicit javadocs is the best thing we can do  
here.


On 11 Jul 2007, at 21:16, Brian Stansberry wrote:

> Why do you need a tag for that, rather than Javadoc? The only  
> advantage I could see for a tag would be if there were tool support  
> for it so the method didn't show up in code completion or  
> something. Doubt that's gonna happen.
>
> I've certainly seen methods like you describe, and have probably  
> written some. Seems better to avoid if possible, particularly if  
> invoking the method screws things up if you don't understand the  
> secrets of the class.
>
> Slightly off topic, but I generally prefer writing a lot of  
> interfaces and clearly stating in both the interface javadoc and  
> the impl class javadoc that the interface is the API (or SPI). I  
> then feel more comfortable about adding methods to the impl class.
>
> Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Quite often when contributing in JBoss projects, I create extra  
>> protected methods (i.e. setters)
>> to make my life a lot simpler when coding unit tests. People have  
>> different opinions (such as
>> the messaging guys who believe every single UT should be coded to  
>> the public API), but I
>> personally believe that you shouldn't be necessarily forced to set  
>> up a complete environment
>> to run a specific UT. There're a lot of situations where it makes  
>> sense to do this, but others where
>> not, and in the latter, having "shortcut" set up methods helps.
>> Sometimes, this "shortcut" methods are already there but other  
>> times are not, hence my tendency
>> to create these protected methods.  Now, wouldn't it be nice if  
>> there's a Java tag
>> that could be applied to this methods to indicate that:
>> "this method is only here to make my unit-testing-coding-life  
>> easier and so, should only be called from
>> unit tests, not from production code"
>> I had a quick look around and could not find anything. Do people  
>> agree/disagree with creating such tag?
>> Cheers,
>> Galder
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosscache-dev mailing list
>> jbosscache-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev
>
>
> -- 
> Brian Stansberry
> Lead, AS Clustering
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> brian.stansberry at redhat.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosscache-dev mailing list
> jbosscache-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev

--
Manik Surtani

Lead, JBoss Cache
JBoss, a division of Red Hat