Re: Assume

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Daniel M. Pomerantz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> See inline:
>  Kelly Anderson wrote:
>  > Do you Assert the line of code threw the exception that you expected?
>  > That seems like the Test is tied too closely to the implementation for
>  > my taste.
>  >
>  >
>
>  All I'm saying here is that if you have
>
>  [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidCastException))]
>
>  And the test passes, all you know is that some line of code caused an
>  invalid cast exception to be thrown.  I supposed you can have some
>  degree of certainty that the line you wanted to throw the exception did,
>  but I don't know of a way to enforce that.
>
>  Compare that too this:
>
>  public void foo()
>  {
>     //Do some stuff here
>
>     try
>     {
>         DoSomethingThatThrowsAnException();
>
>         Assert.Fail("Exception not Thrown");
>     }
>     catch (InvalidCastException ex)
>     {
>         //Do Nothing...Swallow it
>     }
>  }
>
>
>  In this case, you know exactly which line of code raised the exception.
>  I'm not saying it's easier to maintain - To be 100% clear, I remove this
>  second example of code and replace it with the first when I see it, as
>  do you.  My point is that you have a bit more certainty that what
>  happened is what you expected with this example, for better or for worse.

Honestly, I don't see the difference unless you have some code outside
the try as well. The semantics seem equivalent in the case you
present.

-Kelly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/