是否可以在不更改任何代码的情况下对最初设计时未测试的代码进行单元测试？

发布于 2024-09-29 22:11:34 字数 1163 浏览 0 评论 0原文

人们是否普遍认为，除非将代码设置为要测试，否则无法测试代码？

一段假设的代码：

public void QueueOrder(SalesOrder order)
{
   if (order.Date < DateTime.Now-20)
      throw new Exception("Order is too old to be processed");
   ...  
}

有些人会考虑将其重构为：

protected DateTime MinOrderAge;
{
   return DateTime.Now-20;
}

public void QueueOrder(SalesOrder order)
{
   if (order.Date < MinOrderAge)
      throw new Exception("Order is too old to be processed");
   ...
}

注意：您可以想出更复杂的解决方案；涉及IClock接口和工厂。不影响我的提问。

更改上述代码的问题是代码已更改。代码已更改，而客户未要求更改。任何改变都需要召开会议和电话会议。所以我现在处于不测试任何东西更容易的地步。

如果我不愿意/无法进行更改：这是否会使我无法执行测试？

注意：上面的伪代码可能看起来像 C#，但这只是为了可读。这个问题与语言无关。

注意： 假设的代码片段、问题、重构需求以及重构都是假设的。如果您对我的代码示例不满意，您可以插入您自己的假设代码示例。

注意：以上假设代码是假设的。与任何代码的任何关系，无论是活着的还是死了的，都纯粹是巧合。

注意：代码是假设的，但任何答案都不是。这个问题不是主观的：因为我相信有一个答案。

更新：当然，这里的问题是我不能保证上面示例中的更改不会破坏任何内容。当然，我将一段代码重构为一个单独的方法，并且代码在逻辑上是相同的。

但我不能保证添加新的受保护方法不会偏移对象的虚拟方法表，并且如果此类位于 DLL 中，那么我刚刚引入了访问冲突。

原文

Is it generally accepted that you cannot test code unless the code is setup to be tested?

A hypothetical bit of code:

public void QueueOrder(SalesOrder order)
{
   if (order.Date < DateTime.Now-20)
      throw new Exception("Order is too old to be processed");
   ...  
}

Some would consider refactoring it into:

protected DateTime MinOrderAge;
{
   return DateTime.Now-20;
}

public void QueueOrder(SalesOrder order)
{
   if (order.Date < MinOrderAge)
      throw new Exception("Order is too old to be processed");
   ...
}

Note: You can come up with even more complicated solutions; involving an IClock interface and factory. It doesn't affect my question.

The issue with changing the above code is that the code has changed. The code has changed without the customer asking for it to be changed. And any change requires meetings and conference calls. And so i'm at the point where it's easier not to test anything.

If i'm not willing/able to make changes: does it make me not able to perform testing?

Note: The above pseudo-code might look like C#, but that's only so it's readable. The question is language agnostic.

Note: The hypothetical code snippet, problem, need for refactoring, and refactoring are hypothetical. You can insert your own hypothetical code sample if you take umbrage with mine.

Note: The above hypothetical code is hypothetical. Any relation to any code, either living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Note: The code is hypothetical, but any answers are not. The question is not subjective: as i believe there is an answer.

Update: The problem here, of course, is that i cannot guarantee that change in the above example didn't break anything. Sure i refactored one piece of code out to a separate method, and the code is logically identical.

But i cannot guarantee that adding a new protected method didn't offset the Virtual Method Table of the object, and if this class is in a DLL then i've just introduced an access violation.

分享到QQ

分享到微博