IMO catching an exception only makes sense if you check that exception against certain assumptions or you expect that. Otherwise the test runner will catch that (not excepted) and mark the test as failed.
If the current codebase differs from that, I would agree with simplifying that. Jan > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Gintautas Grigelionis [mailto:g.grigelio...@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 4. Dezember 2017 17:23 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: Unit tests in Ivy and Ant > > Hello, > > I decided to spend some time on unit tests in Ivy and Ant; I did some > work on Ivy tests this summer and I feel that work is unfinished. > > In particular, there was a conversation about the use of fail(); my > feeling is that it is somewhat superfluous: there are assumptions for > (de)activating tests, assertions and expected exceptions, and that > should suffice for defining a test. > > The way fail() is used in Ivy now mostly looks like a rethrow of > unexpected exceptions to AssertionErrors (why?). > > So, in a nutshell: I would like to minimize try/catch and if/else in > unit tests and make them work without fail(). What do you think? > > Gintas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
