Re: Re: [PEPr] +1 for Web Services::Services_Delicious

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:41:11 +0100, Stephan Schmidt <schst@php-tools.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Christian Weiske wrote: > > So leave the fields for username and password blank. If anyone wants to > > use the package and it doesn't work, he has the *chance* to test it - if > > he uses it is a different question. > > There are times, when the service is responding with in internal server > error due to a very high load. How should unit tests cope with that. > > While I agree, that unit tests are a good thing, they are not suited for > every package. We have rules, that they should be included in stable > releases, but how do you test against a moving target. The tests are > supposed to test the package, but it would be more like testing whether > the service still responds the same way it did yesterday. > But wouldn't the tests be testing the public API of your package? In this case if the protocol changes, you see failing tests and can fix your backend without touching the tests. The tests are there precisely to let you know this. I.e. they're not just for end-user/developers, heck most don't even run them. They're for you and others to be able to *see* that it works as expected. > There are plans to provide different versions of the service using > different URLs. If this is available, it will make sense. Otherwise, it > would be like testing wether 1+1 equals 2 while somebody is changing the > law of mathematics.... > -- Justin Patrin