Adding optional defensive programming tests #4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rather than removing the tests related to defensive programming techniques in #2, I'd propose to make all defensive programming related tests optional.
I added an additional abstract method: "shouldRunDefensiveProgrammingTests". If it returns true, defensive programming tests are run, otherwise, they are skipped.
It enables us to keep the tests that are valuable, and not to make them compulsory at the same time.
Also, I chose not to put the "defensive programming" tests in a separate test class because 2 abstract test classes means 2 concrete classes implementing twice the same
getContainermethod (or you have to play with traits to avoid repeatin thegetContainermethod which is not completely straightforward).