Jeff Wood wrote:
> So, 
> 
> To answer "how/why would you test this"... you should have tests in
> place for your logging functionality.  The second something doesn't
> come out right, you know that something is marring the system. 
> Debugging starts by walking the source of the packages you are using
> and watching for references to the modified functionality... It's not
> that hard to track down.

As Alexander mentioned, the point of the email was not that he couldn't detect 
it, it's that there's nothing he can do about it short of extending the Logger 
class *again* to make it do what he wants.

Unit tests detect the problem, they don't solve it.  Since the OP controls 
neither the logger package nor the glue package, his choices are limited.

Plus, I'll second Alexander's assertion that you should never have to include 
unit tests to verify that classes work as advertised.  That's the package 
author's job, and a programmer's job not to screw with their behavior, 
especially not classes in core and/or stdlib.  The alternative is a horribly 
slippery slope.

Regards,

Dan