tests building

Maximilian Kossick maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com
Thu Jan 21 22:38:17 CET 2010


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Maximilian Kossick
> <maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What was inaccurate?
>>
>
> The result of tests with stub functions.
>

Not quite, as the tests still ensure that one part of the externally
observable behaviour of the class under test stays the same. As unit
tests are white box tests, the developer is able to judge at the time
of writing whether doing anything more than just reimplementing the
function for the sake of making the linker happy is required. If the
internal behaviour of the class under test changes, the test might
catch that or you have an incomplete test which does not verify all
side effects of the class under test. Which is still *way* better than
no test.

Ideally we'd just get rid of all those static methods...


More information about the Amarok-devel mailing list