| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:02 |
Coddyx |
and |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:02 |
Coddyx |
ok |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:01 |
 neon1024 |
It’d probably be the least amount of work |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:00 |
Coddyx |
To switch the value for true and false |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:00 |
Coddyx |
You suggest I hit the db before the true and false test for miantenance mode? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:00 |
Coddyx |
So for my specific test case |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 15:00 |
Coddyx |
I understand |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:59 |
Coddyx |
:) |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:59 |
neon1024 |
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/a4a4jc/a_software_qa_engineer_walks_into_a_bar/ |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:58 |
neon1024 |
Read about the man who walks into a bar and buys a beer ;) |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:58 |
neon1024 |
There is a balance between critical path testing and testing every use-case |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:57 |
neon1024 |
The npath complexity of a method would give you a guide on how many test-cases might be there |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:57 |
neon1024 |
No, I wouldn’t rely on it. It is a nice guide to see which test-cases you might have missed |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:56 |
Coddyx |
and you rely on code coverage to assert everything passes by where it should? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:55 |
neon1024 |
You only test your public api |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:55 |
neon1024 |
Either your code or your tests, that is |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:55 |
neon1024 |
It’s a code smell. Usually means you need to refactor |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:54 |
neon1024 |
It is |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:54 |
Coddyx |
What is your opinion on that |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:54 |
Coddyx |
directly |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:54 |
Coddyx |
I've read that's it is considered a bad practice to test a private method |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:54 |
Coddyx |
While you're there |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:53 |
Coddyx |
french looks not so bad :P |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:53 |
neon1024 |
Désolé je ne parle pas français parce que je suis britannique |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:52 |
neon1024 |
I wouldn’t ever do that. I’d add more data to the fixture and then select the correct data in the test-case |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:52 |
Coddyx |
actually, do you speak french? i just saw you're from strasbourg |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:51 |
Coddyx |
Is there a way to inject a value in fixture for a specific test? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:50 |
Coddyx |
But |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:50 |
Coddyx |
I'll try it |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:49 |
Coddyx |
that I could |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:48 |
neon1024 |
I guess you could do a write to the test db at the start of the test-case? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:48 |
neon1024 |
If you expose the value in your code or inject it you’d be able to test it much esier |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:48 |
Coddyx |
Like so far I have $records = [ ['maintenance' => 1] ]; |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:48 |
neon1024 |
Well that’s trying to solve a problem in testing by having bad code |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:47 |
Coddyx |
but how can I have a record for a test and another one for the opposite? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:47 |
Coddyx |
And put the record in it |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:47 |
Coddyx |
I baked one |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:47 |
neon1024 |
Which fixes the value, so when you execute the controller request it can get the right value |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:47 |
neon1024 |
I guess you’ll have to write a fixture then |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:46 |
Coddyx |
$this->Model->get() ? |
| # |
Apr 17th 2019, 14:46 |
Coddyx |
oops |