ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Nazarenko <>
Subject RE: JUnit task and friends
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:09:48 GMT
I agree that testing against jar files does not work. But as I know the
main idea of JUnit (according to Creators) is to run ALL test at the
same time at least once a day. So QA person could run the test and
analyze (using output information) what class has failed.  

Again, Imagine situation when QA department is small or not present at
all and developers are creating Test classes by themselves. I think it
is reasonable to have a bunch of Test classes rather then one BIG Test

So probably it is reasonable to create more abstract JUnitTask and then
couple of more specific? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Haas []
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: JUnit task and friends (Conor MacNeill) wrote:
> JUnit has its own concept for handling collections for tests, namely
> Do we want to overlap that?

I can see, that it may be handy to run all tests defined in classes 
named Test*. This would be **/Test*. If others like it, it could be 
done. I do not like it for myself because:
- Testing and QA are tightly coupled, and QA wants to know EXACTLY which

tests are run.
- Our tests usually run against jar files (QA wants to know exactly 
which clas, which version), so matching does not work in its current 

- tom

> --
> Conor MacNeill
> Home:
> Work:
> Web:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Nazarenko []
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2000 0:14
> To: 'Thomas Haas';
> Subject: JUnit task and friends
> Hi All,
> I am quite new in ANT/JUnit programming but I think it is a great idea
> have Unit Testing framework (JUnit), which runs automatically using
> So I have a suggestion concerning Thomas?s realization of JUnitTask. I
> it will be very helpful to derive JUnitTask   from MatchingTask (not
> Task). It will give us the possibility to specify what files we are
going to
> test.
> For example: we have a bunch of test classes, lets say _t*.class.
> MatchingTask it is possible to perform recursive, automated ANT TEST
> the entire tree of classes.
> Is this idea worth to work out or is it already implemented in some
> way?
> Thanks,
> Konstantin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Haas []
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 4:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: JUnit task and friends
> Upon request a snapshot of the current JUnit task is provided.
> Except everything resides in the optional package for now.
> development got stuck due to the current discussion about the future
> of ant. The JUnit task needs a proposal to replace Exec with a more
> extensible and reusable version offering various other feattures (see
> - This version writes the output to RUNNING-TEST-<testname>.xml. The
file is
> renamed to TEST-<testname>.xml on success and ERROR-<testname>.xml on
> failure. This has been done to be compatible with our old, makefile
> build system and will be obsolete, once the backends are converted to
> - Tests are not run if a file TEST-<testname>.xml already exists. This
> used for fix/build/test cycles prior to committing changes to the
> repository.
> - Both features may be made confifurable and/or optional, as they may
not be
> needed by everybody.
> - I started implementing only my features, as it first looked like
> Stefan Bodewig nobody is interested in this. It looks like I was
> great.
> - provide a specialiced classloader to extend the classpath at runtime
> differently for every junit task.
> - in addition to the XML output provide ASCII output.
> - I am not 100% happy with the XML structure, but it is fine right
> - Docu
> As long as it JUnit is not part of ant, I will collect patches and
> them to the list.
> Let me know, what you think.
> - tom

View raw message