+0, leaning to -0, mainly due to the lack of
precision that could cause
some not very obvious to debug test failures.
What about this:
?
It seems to have a very flexible syntax and you don`t have (AFAICS) the
drawback/issues pointed out by Denis.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1, although defining expectations is more like
JMock than Mockito
with respect to code style. I guess there's no way to verify the
exception after invoking the component under test.
Thanks,
Marius
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 1:51 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
Hi devs,
I’d like to propose that we use the strategy described at
https://github.com/junit-team/junit/wiki/Exception-testing (thanks to
Lyes for pointing out this page to me).
For example:
@Test
public void sendSynchronousWithErrors() throws Exception
{
...
this.thrown.expect(MessagingException.class);
this.thrown.expectMessage("Some messages have failed to be sent
for the
following reasons: "
+
"[[[errorsummary1],[errordescription1]][[errorsummary2],[errordescription2]]]");
this.mocker.getComponentUnderTest().send(Arrays.asList(message), session);
}
I feel it’s slightly better than our current idiom based on try/catch.
One
advantage is that we cannot forget to put the fail().
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs