I think it is ok to lie a bit in unit tests as long as the testing data is complete enough not to introduce strange side effects.
For the sake of precision, use enums whenever possible in such cases.
Otherwise, a very good article. Thank you.
Hey, thanks for reading!
Regarding unit tests - agreed, I do this too. However, there are some pitfalls, which I mention here.
use enums whenever possible in such cases
I'd say most of the time a union of string literal types is good enough. Also, enums have a runtime cost (const enums do not, though).
const
a union of string literal types is good enough
You'll thank me later when you have to change the actual values one day (without having to change the enum's identifier).
Actually, I have to admit I didn't even know that there were other enums than const enums. We live and learn.
Yes, good point :)
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think it is ok to lie a bit in unit tests as long as the testing data is complete enough not to introduce strange side effects.
For the sake of precision, use enums whenever possible in such cases.
Otherwise, a very good article. Thank you.
Hey, thanks for reading!
Regarding unit tests - agreed, I do this too. However, there are some pitfalls, which I mention here.
I'd say most of the time a union of string literal types is good enough. Also, enums have a runtime cost (
const
enums do not, though).You'll thank me later when you have to change the actual values one day (without having to change the enum's identifier).
Actually, I have to admit I didn't even know that there were other enums than const enums. We live and learn.
Yes, good point :)