This is what I call test suite for now. What a mouthful :-).
glen at thepfeiffers.net
Sun Dec 12 23:34:38 GMT 2010
On 12 Dec 2010, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:56:29PM -0600, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> > Folder.syncfolder is *the* high-level API that should make
> > sure that a remote folder is syncronized to a local folder
> > after the invocation. It *is* the box, the rest is just box
> > wrapping.
> So don't squeeze the box. Use the entire box. ,-) Wrappers are
> code by themselves there is no reason to ignore.
I hope you do not mind me participating on this part of the
Nicolas, my interpretation of your statement is that you prefer
to implement automated integration tests and not automated
It also seems that both of you agree on the use of automated
integration tests but differ on whether to use automated unit
Is that an accurate representation of both your positions?
Personally, I am a big fan of automated unit tests. I believe
that they provide a very nice safety harness that helps you not
introduce bugs and provides some documentation for the functions
Is the only argument against them that sometimes you have to
change the tests when refactoring? I find that to be an
acceptable cost, mainly because in most of my refactorings, I do
not need to change the associated tests; instead the tests tell
me when I have broken the code. Then again, I normally write
tests first, which may have a positive effect in that area.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project