From: Simon L. <sim...@uk...> - 2002-09-16 14:31:15
|
On Monday 16 September 2002 11:56, Jeff Martin wrote: > Looks reasonable, but could we have a test case for it. It's the sort > of thing that could get broken. > Ok.. I've implemented tests for an object referencing itself, and the=20 classic two objects referencing each other. In writing the test cases it became easier to (ie. may test examples would= =20 only work if this was done) initially check whether we've processed the=20 item before calling verify(). I left the original processing check in as it could catch a manually=20 called verify() for objects previously automatically checked. (A coding style, and supporting methods for verify() could be suggested=20 that would reduce the possibility of loops occuring in test specific=20 verify methods). New diff -u attached Simon., =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Levitt, Senior Development Engineer @ WorldPay plc, WorldPay Centre, The Science Park, Milton Rd., Cambridge, CB4 0WE, ENGLAND = =20 Sim...@uk... Ph:+44(0)1223 715151 F:+44(0)1223 715157 =2D------------------------ http://www.worldpay.com/ ----------------------- |