commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Barnhill <>
Subject Re: [numbers-fraction] Code duplication between FractionTest and BigFractionTest
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:45:59 GMT
> > If additional context is required it fails to meet the definition of
> > a unit test and is instead an integration test,  and the function being
> > tested may require rethinking.
> Depends what you define as a unit test. I'd say the unit was BigFraction
> or Fraction. An integration test is something that must be tested with
> coherant components working together to provide functionality. You are
> not doing that.

Well, I totally agree with both of you that this is the superior approach
for architecture and maintainability. Maybe I should think about adding a
bit more setup to my own unit tests.

I think it is not quite right to say that Fraction is the unit. I think
unit tests test atomic behaviors in the code that ideally can only fail one
way; those are the units. But this is just semantics.

So if you are both in agreement I can change to a +1.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message