Timeline for Determining what is a useful unit test
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2011 at 2:02 | comment | added | David Harkness | Using code coverage you can tell when code in your private methods isn't being executed while testing your public methods. If your public methods are fully covered, any uncovered private methods are obviously unused and can be removed. If not, you need more tests for your public methods. | |
| S Jul 6, 2011 at 20:26 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 | responsed to a comment |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 20:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 6, 2011 at 20:26 | |||||
| Jul 6, 2011 at 19:44 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Jul 6, 2011 at 14:30 | comment | added | zcourts | So just to make sure I understand what you're saying: When testing, focus on testing the public interface right? Assuming that's correct...isn't there a bigger possibility of leaving bugs in private methods/interfaces that you didn't do unit tests for, some tricky bugs in the untested "private" interface could possibly lead to a test passing when it should've really failed. Am I wrong in thinking so? | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 13:48 | history | answered | djna | CC BY-SA 3.0 |