<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unit Testing PL/SQL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2003/12/unit-testing-plsql/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2003/12/unit-testing-plsql/</link>
	<description>A journal of no fixed aims or direction, by Leigh Dodds</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:02:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: joshlee</title>
		<link>http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2003/12/unit-testing-plsql/comment-page-1/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>joshlee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ldodds.com/lostboy/?p=99#comment-176</guid>
		<description>utPLSQL is pretty neat, from what I remember. The hard part is keeping your test data clean and separate, which ends up involving individual, identical test schemas for every developer. DBAs love that.
Also, if your programmers (assuming you&#039;re on a team) aren&#039;t used to making sure their procedures *don&#039;t* cross transaction boundaries, writing your tear-down functions is a royal PITA.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>utPLSQL is pretty neat, from what I remember. The hard part is keeping your test data clean and separate, which ends up involving individual, identical test schemas for every developer. DBAs love that.<br />
Also, if your programmers (assuming you&#8217;re on a team) aren&#8217;t used to making sure their procedures *don&#8217;t* cross transaction boundaries, writing your tear-down functions is a royal PITA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

