Shibboleth Developers

[Walter Hoehn <>]

On Nov 18, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Chad La Joie wrote:

> > > I don't necessarily agree here.  I think if you try to use these   
> > > higher level tests as way to provide test coverage for the lower   
> > > level (individual class or subsystem) tests then yes, I think  
> > > you  loose value.  If you use these to tests that all the  
> > > components are  working together (i.e. that the sum of the parts  
> > > isn't introducing  problems) then you gain value.
> > Maybe so, but there is almost nothing but overlap here, unless  
> > the  highest level tests are very minimal.
>
> In the same vein then there is nothing but overlap between testing  
> individual classes and testing something like the AA.  The tests at  
> the higher level are simply to test that individually tested  
> components at the lower level interoperate correctly.  It's almost  
> always the case that as you get higher up the stack the tests  
> become fewer, I would imagine the same would be true here.

That isn't completely the case here.  There is some amount of code  
that represents the "core" of the IdP that isn't exercised by the  
units tests because it exists a level up the stack from any separable  
internal subsystem.  This was my main motivation for originally  
suggesting the black box testing.

-Walter