tests building

[Ian Monroe]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Maximilian Kossick
<maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I kind of see what you're saying. But just throwing in stub functions
to satisfy the requirements of the Linux linker (what is the Mac
linker using...?) doesn't seem like anyone is making a judgement.


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

Why do you say that, static methods are faster to call and often good design.

Ian