*That* is why I spend so much time writing the test harness

[jducoeur]

I've started to develop a real bias for self-documenting tests. Here's the regression test I just got working:

	
	/**
	 * Tests Bug 57: when you are actively involved with a conversation, the
	 * new responses aren't accounted for as read in the list view.
	 */
	@Test
	public void TestBug57() {
		openCommYou(Mark);
		
		// Start the conversation...
		int convId = startGenericConversation(Mark);
		checkOpenGenericConversation(Mark, convId);
		// ... respond to it several times...
		addGenericResponse(Mark, convId);
		addGenericResponse(Mark, convId);
		addGenericResponse(Mark, convId);
		// ... and go back to the summary view. It *should* show as completely
		// caught up. The bug was that it wasn't doing so.
		goToSummary(Mark);
		refreshConversationList(Mark);
		assertNoNewResponses(Mark, convId);
	}

You can kind of figure out what that's doing even if you don't know the system, and it's wholly obvious if you do. The comments are almost redundant. *That* is what a really good test should look like in my book: clear, concise, and trivially easy to write new one...

Comments

[cellio]

Yup, nice and readable.

I haven't seen bug 57, but reading the test, I would be inclined to wonder if it matters that all the comments are from Mark. This might all for a second test with a mix of, say, Mark and Justin; I trust you'll agree that that's closer to what people would see in the wild?

(I'll refrain from asking API questions yet. :-) )

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

"The problem is not talking to yourself; the problem is when you answer."

[jducoeur]

Oh, sure -- but there are other tests for that. In particular, the BasicConversationTest -- a fairly involved scenario that I use as the primary smoketest -- tests comments going back and forth.

This one's specifically a regression test, so it's intentionally stripped-down. My philosophy of regression tests is that you should write a minimal test that clearly exemplifies the bug without additional complexities, then fix the bug, then re-run the test to prove that it fixed it as you expected...

[cellio]

I share your philosophy; I didn't realize the bug was that tightly characterized.