| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | ijabz(at)fastmail(dot)fm | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Does derby have an embedded Mode like Derby ? | 
| Date: | 2009-08-04 16:51:55 | 
| Message-ID: | 20090804125155.f47a47bd.wmoran@potentialtech.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
In response to Paul Taylor <ijabz(at)fastmail(dot)fm>:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> > In response to Paul Taylor <ijabz(at)fastmail(dot)fm>:
> >
> >> Bill Moran wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Then replace the DB client class with a class that returns fabricated
> >>> data for the purpose of your test.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> Won't work because I am writing SQL and I want to test the SQL is correct
> >>     
> >
> > Well, be warned that not all alternatives to PostgreSQL will have the
> > same SQL compliance as Postgres ... so substituting another db backend
> > is going to be less than reliable.
> >
> > I hope you don't take these next comments as an attack or anything, but
> > I think your whole approach to testing is flawed.  The fact that tests
> > are complicated to set up and take a while to run is just life.  I mean,
> > who cares if they take a while to run?  Computers don't need to sleep, so
> > have them run overnight.  And any test that's actually comprehensive is
> > going to take effort to write anyway.  Thing is, you'll only be setting
> > up the PG startup/teardown stuff once, then any test that needs it can
> > call those functions/scripts/whatever.  If you need more computers or a
> > different OS, then virtualize.  All the tools are there for you.
>
> No, I don't take it personally but I think you are missing the point 
> these are UNIT test not INTEGRATION tests.
I don't feel like I've missed the point, but I wonder if your definition
of "unit" test includes something that I'm not familiar with.  We do
extensive unit tests that require a DB backend to work.  I mean, if
you're unit testing the DB client class, it needs a back end to talk
to.
> As such they need to be run 
> everytime a developer wants to commit some changes to the codebase and 
> therefore should be quick and unobstrusive to run.
And I don't see how that precludes having a DB there that the developer
can connect to for testing.  We have a DB server specifically for this
purpose so that devs can use it to test out their changes before
checking code in.  More specifically, we have one virtual machine that
serves as a dedicated DB server for developer testing.
I mean, if it won't work for you, OK.  I'm just offering suggestions, and
honestly am confused as to what your actual holdup is.
-- 
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gert | 2009-08-04 17:16:27 | Error when assigning default value for function parameter | 
| Previous Message | Paul Taylor | 2009-08-04 16:42:32 | Re: Does derby have an embedded Mode like Derby ? |