Timeline for Unit test Issue on getting value
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 8:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 14:29 | history | bounty ended | Keyur Shah | ||
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:50 | vote | accept | Keyur Shah | ||
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:40 | comment | added | Fabian Schmengler | It's not wrong per se, but it's overcomplicating things and you probably won't get happy with it. Tests that look like a mirror of the production code where each method call in the production code corresponds with a mock expectation in the test code are too tightly coupled with the implementation. You can't write the test before you know exactly what you want to do. The test is based on assumptions how the real collaborators will work. You can't refactor that code without changing the test. All that makes a test that's hard to write, but has little value and a short lifespan. | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:26 | comment | added | Keyur Shah | Just want to silly question, the why I created test is wrong way ? @Fabian | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:08 | comment | added | Keyur Shah | Thanks for the such a constructive answer ! +1 from me @Fabian, and let me try the new style which you provided | |
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:07 | history | edited | Fabian Schmengler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 8:00 | history | edited | Fabian Schmengler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add alternative solution
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 7:05 | history | edited | Fabian Schmengler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed accidental brackets
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 6:50 | history | edited | Fabian Schmengler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed accidental brackets
|
| Oct 2, 2017 at 6:12 | history | answered | Fabian Schmengler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |