-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Unit Testing]: More test cases #647
Conversation
5c3693b
to
06f085e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
06f085e
to
da5b573
Compare
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan <[email protected]>
} | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
public void sampleTestCases() throws IOException, InterruptedException { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure about this test. The problem is that it may become a somewhat blocker of progress. Down the line, if we start to extend how the output looks, then this will fail even though semantics are intact. I feel like the tests should be rooted in semantic rather than syntax -- and this one compares two outputs in a string comparison fashion.
I think the easiest approach is to make the test a bit more narrow and focus on making the tests check that certain properties hold.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree. And new unitesting has been pushed in PR #663
Not needed anymore, using another approach in PR #663 |
Add more unit testing test cases.
Related to issue #630 and extending PR #643
Signed-off-by: Arthur Chan [email protected]