Timeline for Testing DMLException in future method
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:44 | comment | added | sfdcfox♦ | Finally, I found what I was looking for: read this. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:42 | comment | added | sfdcfox♦ | Don't do it. You're not meant to get 100% coverage. Code for performance, and let the coverage be Just Good Enough. The Pareto Principle is in play, and you don't want to be its victim. I've gone down that road before. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:41 | answer | added | Adrian Larson♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:36 | comment | added | Michael Gill | thanks foxy! It's very annoying though, means I can never get above 80% coverage. I was hope by now there was a way. I guess I could remove the fls and try to kill that way. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:31 | comment | added | sfdcfox♦ | Odds are, you can't test this intentionally without sabotaging your code; it's fairly bulletproof as it is. I've said this more than once here, but I'll repeat it again-- 100% coverage should be impossible if you have good error handling routines. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 23:28 | history | asked | Michael Gill | CC BY-SA 3.0 |