Search Results

There is nothing wrong with this method. It's pulling in a lot of information, but sometimes that's something that has to be done (e.g. for reporting, or preparing a large data transfer). It's inevita …

How to test private members Every private member that is useful, is used in some way by a public behavior of that class. To put it another way: if a private member's existence/value has zero impact on …

Proper separation of logic leads to avoiding the exponential growth that leads to "lots of different code paths". I suspect that you have not (or incorrectly) separated your logic, either mentally or …

Worth is subjective "Is it worth it" is generally not objectively answerable when talking about realistic testing expectations. Generally speaking, we don't get as much time to write tests as we would …

In most descriptions of unit testing as a methodology there's an idea of unit tests being as independent of implementation as possible. While I'm not sure if this is the core of your current questio …

The answer to your direct question If the act itself is sufficiently complex, and there is value to its reusability, I see no reason to condemn this approach. As is often the case, the question isn't …

I completely recognize, that just trying to write tests for something, makes the code way better. As much as developers should be urged towards unit testing, your expectation is a bit off. Unit t …

Exactly one of these things is true about a private member: In some way, it gets called when at least one of the class' public members are interacted with. It is not used and can be safely removed. …

The code example you provided is somewhat nonsensical, but I assume this is intended as a trivial example, not real code. My answer is written under that assumption. AAA The basic AAA pattern helps i …

Phill W's answer is great. I can't replace it. However, I do want to focus on another part that may have been part of the confusion. In some organisations, apparently, part of the software releas …

Unit tests don't care about private classes, because unit tests inherently don't care about the processing step. That is to say, unit tests don't care about parts of the processing. A unit test is in …

I want to come in with a different answer here, in favor of adding these comments. TL;DR Use these comments when they make sense. I'm all for it. But first, I want to be very clear here that this answ …

Jorg's answer is correct, avoiding complex methods is the way to go. But I wanted to add a practical example of how to segregate these (while trying to minimize the change required). for example a …

Your question touches on multiple issues. I've tried to decouple them as best as I can. Direct answers to your questions Is validation logic actually business logic and if so is it wrong to hav …

You're getting too granular with your definitions. Zoom out a bit. The language's framework is part of the language, and is not considered a component in the sense of a unit test, nor a mock, nor one …