To use implemented methods in the tests are good or bad idea?
I am testing a method, that in some cases return a new object and in some cases returns an existing object but updated.
I have a method that creates a new object in a default state, so i am wondering if it would be a good idea to use this method in the tests of the new method to check if it is a new object or not, so I could reuse code and not check all the properties one by one, because I can use another method to compare both objects.
But I have doubts about if it is a good idea to use this kind of methods in the tests.
Thanks.
c# unit-testing testing
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
add a comment |
I am testing a method, that in some cases return a new object and in some cases returns an existing object but updated.
I have a method that creates a new object in a default state, so i am wondering if it would be a good idea to use this method in the tests of the new method to check if it is a new object or not, so I could reuse code and not check all the properties one by one, because I can use another method to compare both objects.
But I have doubts about if it is a good idea to use this kind of methods in the tests.
Thanks.
c# unit-testing testing
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
1
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16
add a comment |
I am testing a method, that in some cases return a new object and in some cases returns an existing object but updated.
I have a method that creates a new object in a default state, so i am wondering if it would be a good idea to use this method in the tests of the new method to check if it is a new object or not, so I could reuse code and not check all the properties one by one, because I can use another method to compare both objects.
But I have doubts about if it is a good idea to use this kind of methods in the tests.
Thanks.
c# unit-testing testing
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
I am testing a method, that in some cases return a new object and in some cases returns an existing object but updated.
I have a method that creates a new object in a default state, so i am wondering if it would be a good idea to use this method in the tests of the new method to check if it is a new object or not, so I could reuse code and not check all the properties one by one, because I can use another method to compare both objects.
But I have doubts about if it is a good idea to use this kind of methods in the tests.
Thanks.
c# unit-testing testing
c# unit-testing testing
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
asked Nov 22 at 17:52
Álvaro García
6,2521861115
6,2521861115
1
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16
add a comment |
1
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16
1
1
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's common to use a helper class or factory to generate and test objects in unit tests to increase maintainability of code. (by having less of it)
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53436121%2fto-use-implemented-methods-in-the-tests-are-good-or-bad-idea%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's common to use a helper class or factory to generate and test objects in unit tests to increase maintainability of code. (by having less of it)
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
add a comment |
It's common to use a helper class or factory to generate and test objects in unit tests to increase maintainability of code. (by having less of it)
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
add a comment |
It's common to use a helper class or factory to generate and test objects in unit tests to increase maintainability of code. (by having less of it)
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
It's common to use a helper class or factory to generate and test objects in unit tests to increase maintainability of code. (by having less of it)
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
answered Nov 22 at 17:56
Jeff Davies
458411
458411
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53436121%2fto-use-implemented-methods-in-the-tests-are-good-or-bad-idea%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
That doesn't sound very "unit" to me. Consider reworking your tests. It sounds like you are testing more than you should.
– JuanR
Nov 22 at 17:57
We tend to start off with extremely granular tests and then gradually move toward testing functionality. If the first method is a) tested and b) extremely simple, then using it as a step in a test is okay. The possible catch is that the tests you write aren't testing the first method, but they do depend on it. That means your tests are coupled to your production code. But that's true of most tests we write. It's awesome if we can figure out how not to do that, but most of the time we're ahead of the game if we're just writing testable code and unit tests.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:12
Here's a blog post. I wish I could say that I'm writing tests on this level. I've asked people to express their thoughts on this. They tend to say that they understand it and then use examples which indicate that they don't. I take it as meaning that there's plenty of room to learn and grow. Perhaps we used to write untestable, untested code. Now we get all sorts of benefits from writing unit tests. That's a huge win. This just means that, like always, there's yet another level.
– Scott Hannen
Nov 22 at 19:16