| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 2010-07-26 11:45, Jonathan Lange wrote:
I'm very glad you've got unit tests for this code, but I think it would be better still if we tested the fake librarian and the real librarian with the same set of tests. That way we can be confident that our fake isn't masking bugs.[1]
That's definitely one of the things I wanted to try if/when taking this further. *Full* test compatibility would be a bridge too far though: support for adding files remotely doesn't make much sense for what the fake librarian is meant to achieve. And then there's notions like failover and networking errors that just don't exist in the fake librarian.
What does moving the Librarian out of the LaunhpadLayer into a new layer win?
On the one hand it'd be an effective way of moving over all tests that don't need the full librarian. On the other hand, some of us have been feeling that the name LaunchpadLayer is too "attractive" in the first place given that it fires up such a heavyweight service.
On the gripping hand, we don't want to promulgate layers unnecessarily. We might as well enable the fake in the lowest layer that will support it. But we'll want a way to recognize and fix Librarian-using tests that the fake is good enough for.
Jeroen
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
