Closed jonathan-benn closed 7 years ago
For sure more tests will be better for software quality, however, I think those changes in TestSinonStub.py
should be added to TestSinonBase.py
. Besides, those changes can even be considered to be removed from TestSinonStub.py
if the meaning of them isn't really related to stub.py
.
Hi Kir,
For sure more tests will be better for software quality, however, I think those changes in
TestSinonStub.py
should be added toTestSinonBase.py
. Besides, those changes can even be considered to be removed fromTestSinonStub.py
if the meaning of them isn't really related tostub.py
.
Are you sure that's what you want? Getting a return value from executing the "pure" function only makes sense for the stub, that's why I put the tests in TestSinonStub.py
. If I put the tests anywhere else, I'm afraid that future maintainers might have trouble finding them.
Best Regards,
--Jonathan
Are you sure that's what you want? Getting a return value from executing the "pure" function only makes sense for the stub, that's why I put the tests in TestSinonStub.py. If I put the tests anywhere else, I'm afraid that future maintainers might have trouble finding them.
I see, I understand your intention here now.
I respect this reasonable decision. Just keeping this test in TestSinonStub.py
is fine. Thanks!
Thanks! The refactor is very nice! Only a few naming issues are required.
I fixed the issues you brought up, and the Pull Request is ready for review.
I moved __get_wrapper from
SinonSpy
up toSinonBase
, and fixedSinonBase.__call__
I also made a small fix to
SpyCall
... let me know if you want that in a separate fixFixes note35/sinon#15