Comments on: Why and How Using the accessible_by_clause https://www.salvis.com/blog/2018/05/06/why-and-how-using-the-accessible_by_clause/ Database-centric development Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:36:39 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Mathew Butler https://www.salvis.com/blog/2018/05/06/why-and-how-using-the-accessible_by_clause/#comment-14440 Mon, 18 May 2020 17:10:27 +0000 https://www.salvis.com/blog/?p=8276#comment-14440 Cheers for the follow up and clarifications. 👍🏼

]]> By: Philipp Salvisberg https://www.salvis.com/blog/2018/05/06/why-and-how-using-the-accessible_by_clause/#comment-14439 Mon, 18 May 2020 14:25:00 +0000 https://www.salvis.com/blog/?p=8276#comment-14439 In reply to Mathew Butler.

(…) reorganise my tests
(…) might include changing package names
(…) update the object reference in the accessible by clause (…)

Yes, you’re right. In this case the accessible_by_clause is not a good option. However, it should only be used for exceptional cases. Testing private units. Something to avoid anyway. ;-)

(…) you seem to dislike breaking out packages into two. (…)

No, that’s not what I wanted to say. Splitting packages to improve reusability or accountability or cohesion or decoupling or testability in general are good reasons. But if my only reason to split a package is to make a private unit visible and thus testable, then I think that’s wrong, and I certainly don’t like it. In those cases I consider adding an accessible_by_clause the lesser evil.

P.S. Sorry, for the late answer, I missed this comment somehow.

]]> By: Mathew Butler https://www.salvis.com/blog/2018/05/06/why-and-how-using-the-accessible_by_clause/#comment-14331 Fri, 08 May 2020 14:32:55 +0000 https://www.salvis.com/blog/?p=8276#comment-14331 I’ve just read the Oracle Base article prior to coming here. I was thinking about the same usage to enable access to tests. It feels a bit clunky though; if I want to reorganise my tests, which might include changing package names, then I’ll need to change application code to update the object reference in the accessible by clause. In my current working environment, changes like described to test code would be fine, but application code changes get more controlled. A test refactoring that impacts application code would require an impact assessment. A nice feature though and I like the application.

As an aside, in your article you seem to dislike breaking out packages into two. To me smaller packages seems better, as it can lead to more reuse (provided guide lines like Single Responsibility, Cohesion, Loose Coupling are followed). I struggle though as my IDE of choice (SQL Developer) doesn’t make managing this style of development, or the associated refactoring steps, easy. Maybe one day …

Thanks for sharing!

]]>