From: ahoward <ahoward@...>
Date: 2003-05-17T00:19:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit sequencing

On Fri, 16 May 2003, [iso-8859-1] Anders Bengtsson wrote:

> By database code I meant the parts of the code that knows about the
> database. If your application is written in a mostly OO-style you'll
> probably have the "business logic" of the app separated from the gritty
> details about how to store a value in a database column.  But then again,
> most small apps that use a database are built very much around the database,
> without that separation. It makes them easier to develop, but less object
> oriented, which makes them much harder to unit test. (But other kinds of
> testing works ok).

hmmm.  i think i am guilty of this, and this probably explains my delima.  you
seem to know a good deal more about unit testing than i do - it's always
interesting to read people's opinions on this as i feel it's a powerful tool,
but one i don't completely understand.  in any case, it's very cool the the
framework is now included in ruby.  it would be a good thing IMHO if unit
testing becomes a main component of the 'ruby way'.

-a


--
  ====================================
  | Ara Howard
  | NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
  | Information and Technology Services
  | Data Systems Group
  | R/FST 325 Broadway
  | Boulder, CO 80305-3328
  | Email: ara.t.howard@fsl.noaa.gov
  | Phone:  303-497-7238
  | Fax:    303-497-7259
  ====================================