This is what I call test suite for now. What a mouthful :-).

Glen Pfeiffer glen at
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.

Hi Guys,

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[1] and not automated 
unit tests[2].

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 
they test.

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 mailing list