|
Home > Archive > Apache JDO Project > March 2006 > Assertion coverage of detachment tests
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Assertion coverage of detachment tests
|
|
| Michelle Caisse 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
| Hi Craig,
Some of the tests in org.apache.jdo.tck.persistencemanager.detach
reference assertion 12.6.8. Does this mean that this test package
covers all assertions 12.6.8-*?
-- Michelle
| |
| Craig L Russell 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
| | |
| Martin Zaun 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
|
Hi Michelle,
got a question on the detachment and persistent-nontransactional
assertions. I've seen your additions to the spreadsheet and your
JDO-273 and JDO-258 comments for the StateTransition[ReturnedObjects]
tests to reflect the added assertions.
So far, the StateTransition tests only refer to the State Transition
table (assertion A5.9-1 following), not to any additional assertions
on state transitions described in the text, which, I think, are all
covered by the table (since it's a full matrix).
I could add additional references to the test classes for the detached
and persistent-nontransactional lifecycle assertions, but wouldn't we
then have to do this for all the other states too ?
Thx,
Martin
| |
| Michelle Caisse 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
| Hi Martin,
It would be great if you could add anything that you know is missing, as
a range of assertion numbers or a set of ranges. Then I could check it
against the spreadsheet and make sure we have all tested assertions
marked "yes".
Thanks,
Michelle
Martin Zaun wrote:
>
> Hi Michelle,
> got a question on the detachment and persistent-nontransactional
> assertions. I've seen your additions to the spreadsheet and your
> JDO-273 and JDO-258 comments for the StateTransition[ReturnedObjects]
> tests to reflect the added assertions.
>
> So far, the StateTransition tests only refer to the State Transition
> table (assertion A5.9-1 following), not to any additional assertions
> on state transitions described in the text, which, I think, are all
> covered by the table (since it's a full matrix).
>
> I could add additional references to the test classes for the detached
> and persistent-nontransactional lifecycle assertions, but wouldn't we
> then have to do this for all the other states too ?
>
> Thx,
> Martin
|
|
|
|
|