blocks|key|785050|text|我不认为它本身是“必要的”，但它确实保护了您，以防您在某些时候向setter添加逻辑(例如:当尝试负的Wins/Losses/Draws时抛出异常，因为您没有使用无符号整数)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|785051|如何测试？简单:调用setter，调用getter，验证值是否为您存储的值，或者抛出您期望的异常。|785052|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I don't think it's "necessary" per se, but it does guard you in case you add logic to your setters at some point (for example: throwing exception when negative Wins/Losses/Draws are attempted, since you're not using unsigned ints).

How to test it? Simple: Call the setter, call the getter, verify that the value is what you stored, or the exception you expected is thrown.

blocks|key|785054|text|这是可以做到的，但是完全没有用。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|785055|值对象绝对不包含逻辑，因此测试它们是徒劳的(如果您的值对象被破坏，那么几乎所有其他测试都将失败，因为您从未模拟过它们)。|785056|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

It can be done, but totally useless IMO. 
Value objects contain absolutely no logic, and so testing them is wasted effort (and just about all other tests will break if your value objects are broken, given that you never mock them).

blocks|key|785097|text|我不测试short+style属性。后面的代码是由编译器自动生成的，所以我不明白为什么我要测试它们。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|785098|只要记住，一旦你改变了排序签名，就添加了缺失的测试。|785099|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I do not test the short style properties. The code behind is automatically generated by the compiler so I don't see why I should test them.

Just keep in mind to add the missing test as soon as you change the sort signature.

blocks|key|1533978|text|我将测试比简单的get/set更多的功能。例如，值对象应该覆盖Equals和GetHashCode。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1533979|如果您将单元测试视为编码的功能规范，这可以帮助您想出所需的测试。(如果您真的有一个功能规范，那么这是确定单元测试的一个很好的来源。)|1533980|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I would test the functionality that is more than simple get/set. For example, value objects should override Equals and GetHashCode.

If you think of the unit test as a coded functional spec, that can help you think up the tests that are needed. (If you really have a functional spec, then that is a good source for determining unit tests.)

blocks|key|3946564|text|答案是一种观点。我会说不是。但是，在日常工作中确实会出现这样的问题，我理解这个问题，所以让我再给出一些意见：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3946565|我会根据具体情况来判断。如果你认为“我的单元测试例程可以全部测试”(并依赖它)，并且你认为上面的例程可能会朝着更复杂的方向改变，那么答案是肯定的。像这样的问题，我有时会回答“是”，但过了一段时间才发现这真的是言过其实了。然后，在其他情况下，我会判断“哦，不，伙计，这真的是言过其实了”，但后来才发现有一个方面我从来没有想过。|3946566|如何测试？作为所有测试用例:定义输入和预期结果。设置它。把它拿过来。检查get是否为您设置的内容。|3946567|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

The answer is an opinion. I would say NO. But such questions really arise in day to day work and I understand the question so let me give some more opinion:

I would judge based on specific situation. If you think "my unit test routines do test it all" (and rely on it) and you see any likelihood above routines could ever change towards something more sophisticated then the answer is YES. Questions like these I sometimes answer with YES only to find out after a while it was really overkill. Then on other occasions I judge "oh no man this is really overkill" only to find out later that there was an aspect I never thought of.

How to test it? As all test cases: Define input and expected result. Set it. Get it. Check whether get is what you've set.

blocks|key|1534029|text|有一篇关于值对象及其介绍和测试的优秀文章，作者是Dan+Bergh+Johnsson+|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|BOLD|entityRanges|data|1534030|为了清楚起见，我必须重申，给出的示例不是值对象。http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ValueObject.html|1534031|它特别是一个命令、消息或者更有可能是一个(DTO)数据传输对象，正如其他人所提到的，所提供的类没有要测试的行为。|1534032|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ValueObject.html^0|0|16|0|O|1A|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|R|8|@$9|S|A|T|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|U|8|@]|D|@$9|V|A|W|1|X]]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|E|$P|Q]]]]

There is an excellent article on Value Objects and their introduction and testing by Dan Bergh Johnsson
<a href="http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Value-Objects-Dan-Bergh-Johnsson" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Value-Objects-Dan-Bergh-Johnsson</a>

For clarity I must reiterate that the example given is not a value object.
<a href="http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ValueObject.html" rel="nofollow">http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ValueObject.html</a>

It is specifically either a command, message or more likely a (DTO) Data Transfer Object
As others have mentioned, the provided class has no behaviour to test.

Is it necessary to unit test a value object, and how would you go about it?

Take for instance this object:

<pre><code>public class TeamProfile
{
 public string Name { get; set; }

 public int Wins { get; set; }
 public int Losses { get; set; }
 public int Draws { get; set; }
}
</code></pre>

Unit testing a value object

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

有必要对一个值对象进行单元测试吗?你会怎么做呢？以这个对象为例：public class TeamProfile{    public string Name { get; set; }    public int Wins { get; set; }    public int Losses { get; set; ...

问对值对象进行单元测试
EN

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问对值对象进行单元测试EN