Skip to main content

When I'm writing a unit test, it's possible to add an assertion query. I do this for tasks to verify if the task input is converted into the correct tables. But I'm still writing code. And that should be verified by another developer I think.

The ‘code review’ section is only applicable for control procedures, not for assertion queries.

  • How do you deal with this? How do I let my collegue know he has to verify that assertion query to?

Currently I have to inform him by e-mail or so, what's actually changed, in stead he could take a look himself to see the difference (like a git pull request).

Maybe what I actually want is having a before data set and an after data set. But that is just an idea (to have as less code as possible, all ‘queries’ should be removed). Or maybe a complete diff what's changed.

Hi René,

Since the assertion query of the unit test is a quality measure in and of itself and has no direct effect on the product, we have decided not to provide a review flow for this. The same holds true for validation code. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

However, we are looking into more easy ways to formally review arbitrary modified parts of the model besides control procedures and templates. This would be more like the pull request example you mentioned, reviewing the changes of a branch being merged.

Having a secondary data set as validation would be a nice feature. It might not be able to cover all scenarios (e.g. something with time) but it could work for a large number of unit tests. Feel free to add a topic in the ideation section.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings