Re: Assume
"Vaughn, Clifton" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.dotnet.nunit.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C1A113F58C449C43AD6FB79FCEF64CDA068187C4@dsp62mail.na.bestbuy.com> |
Yeah, I replied without reading other messages. I saw when you pointed it out to Kelly Thanks cliff > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel M. Pomerantz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 5:03 PM > To: Vaughn, Clifton > Cc: Kelly Anderson; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nunit-developer] Assume > > Hi Cliff, > > It isn't the same. Look for the line that says "//Do some stuff here" > That is the difference. There is in fact a difference. Other people > may not see it. Other people may not appreciate it. I myself don't use > it, but there is a difference, and if you ask me, it's an important one. > > dmp > > Vaughn, Clifton wrote: > >> 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. > > > > > > [cliff] this doesn't seem any different than > > [ExpectedException] > > Public void foo() > > { > > DoSomethingThatThrowsAnException(); > > } > > > > It says the same and with less code and IMHO is more clearer. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/