apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Thu Jan 12 04:34:38 EST 2006
Op 2006-01-11, Hans Nowak schreef <hans at zephyrfalcon.org>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2006-01-10, Terry Hancock schreef <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>:
>>>In unit testing, you write the code, then write code to test
>>>the code, which must correctly identify the methods in the
>>>code. So you have to type 'everything' twice.
>> But you don't type attribute names twice in unit tests,
>> because attributes are in general implementation details
>> that are of no concern to the tester. So unit tests can
>> not introduce the redundancy to find out a missed spelled
>> attribute in some methods.
> I wouldn't call attributes "implementation details", at least not in
> Python. And while it is true that unit tests might not find the
> misspelling *directly* (i.e. you rarely test if you have misspelled
> something), your tests should definitely show unexpected behavior and
> results, if that attribute is of any importance. Otherwise there's a
> loophole in your tests. :-)
But now we are back to my first doubt. Sure unit test will be
helpfull in finding out there is a bug. I doubt they are that
helpfull in tracking the bug (at least this kind).
More information about the Python-list