[seam-dev] Seam 3: webbeans-logging/webbeans-logger

[Pete Muir]

I think the idea with JCDI is that you do your unit tests in the  
container (hence things like @Mock)...

On 13 Jun 2009, at 02:16, Dan Allen wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk>  
> wrote:
> What sort of unit test are you thinking of? The unit tests we do in  
> Web Beans and the TCK run WB, so cause the injection to occur (do we  
> need to provide a mock logger?!) - I though you used a similar thing  
> in Seam...
>
> It depends on how you define unit testing (or two what degree for a  
> given test). The holy grail of POJO development is that you can  
> inject all dependencies manually in the test setup, if you want. The  
> more things a class depends on, the more things you have to inject.  
> Now, it makes perfect since to have to inject dependencies that the  
> class depends on to perform the business function. But having to  
> worry about injecting a logger just to get the class to work seems  
> like...well, sort of a bummer. I would prefer that if I'm in a  
> manual test setup configuration (outside of any bootstrap) then I  
> don't have to worry about injecting a logger.
>
> Perhaps I'm just being too purist. But I still say that I should not  
> care, as a tester, that a class needs a logger. It should find one  
> itself if I don't provide it one.
>
> Of course, with the AbstractWebBeansTestCase, a logger will be  
> injected. I get that.
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2009, at 18:12, Dan Allen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Pete Muir  
>> <pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
>> Yeah, the split is un-obvious (esp due to naming), but we wanted a  
>> module we could use inside the RI, that didn't have the producer  
>> method on it....
>>
>> So I'm wondering, what should the standard signature of this  
>> injection be? Always a field injection (as opposed to a constructor  
>> injection)? What about access (package or private)?
>>
>> private @Logger Log log;
>>
>> The reason I ask about access (and constructor injection) is  
>> because this could be the one pain in the side to unit testing a  
>> bean. Package access just makes it easier to inject a stub. What  
>> would be interesting is if the field could be seeded with a stub so  
>> that the logger just works in a unit test.
>>
>> private @Logger Log log = new NoOpLogImpl();
>>
>> The injection would overwrite this value. Just an idea.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> -- 
>> Dan Allen
>> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>>
>> http://mojavelinux.com
>> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
>>
>> NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a  
>> daily
>> basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
>> from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than  
>> a week,
>> it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
>> caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a  
>> message if
>> you feel that it did not reach my attention.
>> _______________________________________________
>> seam-dev mailing list
>> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
>
> NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
> basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
> from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than  
> a week,
> it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
> caught in the spam filters.  Please don't hesitate to resend a  
> message if
> you feel that it did not reach my attention.