coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Ritchie Annand <wakarimasen@xxxxxxx>]

I was looking at those code contracts with great interest. I do quite a 
number of asserts in my base code, but those aren't all that "official".
 Code contracts were the one reason I looked at Eiffel with a great deal
 of envy back in the day :)



Code contracts - however implemented - are great for negative testing.



I had been thinking of things in terms of separate tools, but perhaps 
classes is a better approach for some parts.



I don't suppose Microsoft might have any particular libraries that could
 represent a whole file system, does it? For some peoples' odd DMZ 
requirements, I put together a VirtualFileSystem a little while back - 
you could attach a memory-based file directory root to '/$(user)/inbox' 
and anything using that directory or 'below' would be dealing in 
memory-based files, but it wouldn't be robust or transparent enough for 
the needs I am imagining.



It just might be nifty to have tools be able to deal with real 
directories when appropriate, or use something virtual when combining 
tool classes together, or use a repository directly for some uses, or use something totally fake when unit testing, 
and be able to dump out files from a virtual tree to a real drive when 
dealing with third-party tools.



In some ways, it's not all that hard to put something like that 
together, but it might be too majorly highfalutin' for our purposes here
 :)



-- Ritchie

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Ben-Joseph <jbenjos@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Thinking abotu testing CoApp's tools.
To: Ritchie Annand <wakarimasen@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Well, I believe we could do some unit tests on the individual 
> classes. It
> might also be worth doing some functional tests on the commands 
> themselves.
> Another thing worth looking at (although perhaps not directly 
> related to
> testing) is code contracts (
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/devlabs/dd491992.aspx). Code 
> contracts allow
> for some additional run-time checking of correctness.
> 
> Jonathan Ben-Joseph
>