Return to Answer

replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/

edited May 23, 2017 at 11:33

edited May 23, 2017 at 11:33

Testing

concat isn't a great name for a test, it doesn't tell me anything about what it is that the test does, it simply copies the name of the method being called. Something like concatShouldReturnConcatenationForTwoPopulatedArrays might be a better description
Personally, for a test this simple, I'd tend to define the expected results for the test within it rather than calculating it on the fly. This makes it less likely that you'll get a failure because your test is wrong. It also allows you to use the junit array comparison junit array comparison.
```
 Assert.assertArrayEquals( expectedResult, result );
```

You've only got one test, I'd tend to add at least 3 more for:

 concat([], numbers2)
 concat(numbers1, [])
 concat([], [])

Testing

concat isn't a great name for a test, it doesn't tell me anything about what it is that the test does, it simply copies the name of the method being called. Something like concatShouldReturnConcatenationForTwoPopulatedArrays might be a better description
Personally, for a test this simple, I'd tend to define the expected results for the test within it rather than calculating it on the fly. This makes it less likely that you'll get a failure because your test is wrong. It also allows you to use the junit array comparison.
```
 Assert.assertArrayEquals( expectedResult, result );
```

You've only got one test, I'd tend to add at least 3 more for:

 concat([], numbers2)
 concat(numbers1, [])
 concat([], [])

Testing

concat isn't a great name for a test, it doesn't tell me anything about what it is that the test does, it simply copies the name of the method being called. Something like concatShouldReturnConcatenationForTwoPopulatedArrays might be a better description
Personally, for a test this simple, I'd tend to define the expected results for the test within it rather than calculating it on the fly. This makes it less likely that you'll get a failure because your test is wrong. It also allows you to use the junit array comparison.
```
 Assert.assertArrayEquals( expectedResult, result );
```

You've only got one test, I'd tend to add at least 3 more for:

 concat([], numbers2)
 concat(numbers1, [])
 concat([], [])

answered Jul 20, 2016 at 8:10

answered Jul 20, 2016 at 8:10

Testing

concat isn't a great name for a test, it doesn't tell me anything about what it is that the test does, it simply copies the name of the method being called. Something like concatShouldReturnConcatenationForTwoPopulatedArrays might be a better description
Personally, for a test this simple, I'd tend to define the expected results for the test within it rather than calculating it on the fly. This makes it less likely that you'll get a failure because your test is wrong. It also allows you to use the junit array comparison.
```
 Assert.assertArrayEquals( expectedResult, result );
```

You've only got one test, I'd tend to add at least 3 more for:

 concat([], numbers2)
 concat(numbers1, [])
 concat([], [])

lang-java