RE: Connection class reorg in a testable state

Warren Young wrote:

> Maybe I'm misjudging because of the thin documentation, but it doesn't

> look like it really does all that much.

Well granted, it's only a testing framework. There's not much more I can say - maybe spend a couple of hours coding with it and see how you get on?

> In that case, we'll have feature parity in about another day's
development time.

The developers have spent quite a lot of time on it - even with your coding skills that seems optimistic!

> The only possible benefit I can see is that it might make the MySQL++
> build process faster. The current test/* scheme makes one executable
> for each class of test, which is fairly expensive. One hopes that
UT++
> will let you scatter CHECK_* calls throughout the library code proper,

> saving on at least the linking time for all those little test
programs.

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related lists.mysql.com Links announce benchmarks bugs certification cluster commits dotnet gui-tools internals java maxdb myodbc mysql mysqldoc packagers perl plusplus replication win32 Request more information about Pantek

It doesn't work in that way. There would be two projects - the mysql++ library, and one executable with all the tests in it. The mysql++ library has no dependency on the test application. So no CHECK calls in the library anywhere - you just test the interface does what you expect.

Here's a test application:

#include "UnitTest++/src/unittest++.h"

#include "mysql++.h"

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{

        return UnitTest::RunAllTests();
}

TEST(DoesItWork)
{

        CHECK(whatever);
}

Do you need more help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related lists.mysql.com Links announce benchmarks bugs certification cluster commits dotnet gui-tools internals java maxdb myodbc mysql mysqldoc packagers perl plusplus replication win32 Request more information about Pantek

> Am I missing some big chunk of value here?

Maybe, as many developers swear by it - I don't write any code without having a test for it first, although that's just a symptom of deciding to test first rather than a byproduct of this particular framework. Again, all I can say is try it out.

> You misunderstand my concern about list noise. I don't doubt that
UT++
> itself is stable. What I doubt is that one can reliably write tests
> correctly for a platform you don't use.

Tests should be really simple and just exercise the library interface. If the code doesn't work, it's more likely a problem with the library rather than the test because the tests will be using the library in the same way that any client will be.

> it follows that release versions of MySQL++
> can't have post-build unit tests turned on.

I'm not sure it would be wise to do that anyway. I would say that it should be for hackers use, rather than for regular library users.

> If database independence ever happens (big "if"), I will call it a
> success if the library returns the same database results for a given
> query regardless of the database server you point it at. For the
> limited goal, the current bmark.txt snapshot scheme suffices.

Yes, but that's testing the hypothetical database server (integration test), not that the query object is actually sending what it should be to mysql.

Can we help you?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related lists.mysql.com Links announce benchmarks bugs certification cluster commits dotnet gui-tools internals java maxdb myodbc mysql mysqldoc packagers perl plusplus replication win32 Request more information about Pantek

> I think you're overselling test-driven development. It's quite
possible
> to have a testable design that still has many dependencies.

I accept what you're saying, but it's the same with anything - the developer has to have a brain. But if you don't write any code without having a test for it, and you refactor appropriately, the low dependency, granular design will evolve.

I honestly don't think I'm overselling tdd. We have 100% test coverage, with high granularity, low dependency code. Coding test-first is the only way to get seriously reliable software, even more so in an environment where anyone can contribute. Sure, you can add tests later, but can you ever say with confidence that you have 100% test coverage? No way.

Anyway, I really think you should at have a go with UnitTest++ and see how you like it before deciding.

Joel

-- 
MySQL++ Mailing List
For list archives: 
http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
To unsubscribe:    
http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=lists@pantek.com