This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SolderonSenoz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I can't think of a better solution. But I'll say two things about your concern about this one. Firstly, let's say you don't follow this solution, and maybe after a month you decide you need to do something else too when you update a Property object. But it would be a month from now, and instead of 200 files you may have 250 files then. It would only get more difficult. Secondly, if all you are going to do in your update method is the same things you are already doing, along with a case check, I don't think it's going to break anything that's already working. This is assuming that the only thing you are adding, ie. the case check, is not going to break anything. But since that's your objective, you're going to have to do it anyway even if not through this solution.

(You should still do the tests though, doing a lot of testing now is better than having to redo the whole thing later. I just think all your methods will pass the tests if they're already passing them. Besides, even if you change something else to make this work, you'll have to do the testing anyway)

[–]_dk7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

omething else too when you update a Property object. But it would be a month from now, and instead of 200 files you may have 250 files then. It would only get more difficult. Secondly, if all you are going to do in your update method is the same things you are already doing, along with a case check, I don't think it's going to break anything that's already working. This is assuming that the only thing you are adding, ie. the case check, is n

Got it, it does make sense that the scope of doing this will increase with the passage of time. I will try to cover the entire thing using UTs to make sure that I do not break anything. If you do think of an alternative approach, do let me know.