ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clark Archer <clark.arc...@gmail.com>
Subject FailureRecorder design issue or bug
Date Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:00:25 GMT
During implementing my previously mentioned test history recorder, I
discovered an issue with the current FailureRecorder implementation.  The
problem I'm seeing is that it doesn't write the failure suite Java class
when the JUnitTask forks a new JVM to execute tests.  FailureRecorder relies
on registering itself as a BuildListener by overriding ProjectComponent's
setProject() method.  JUnitTestRunner doesn't have access to the current
Project since it's running in a separate JVM and so never invokes
setProject().  This means that the taskFinished() method is never invoked
either and the recorded results are lost.

Once I gave this some thought, it seemed to me that FailureRecorder was
doing too much to be thought of as just a formatter.  I'm not sure it should
even be declared in the build.xml using the <formatter/> tag since it's not
formatting anything but that's another issue.  I was following the same
method of hooking the taskFinished() method for my HistoryRecorder but had
to make some changes in order to work in a forked JVM.  At this point my
solution was to add two new lifecycle methods to the JUnitResultFormatter
interface: startAllTestSuites() and endAllTestSuites().  The JUnitTestRunner
then invokes these methods and allows the recorder to write it's results.

This solution has advantages and disadvantages.  To the good, it removes the
need for the FailureRecorder to extend ProjectComponent and simplifies the
implementation (also makes it work in a forked JVM!).  On the bad side, it
complicates JUnitTestRunner and the JUnitResultFormatter interface.  This
could be cleaned up by adding a new "recorder" concept rather than heavily
overloading the existing "formatter" tag.

Another unfortunate side effect of having recorders masquerade as formatters
is the need for all FailureRecorder instances communicate via a static Set
of failed tests (JUnitTestRunner creates a fresh formatter instance for each
test suite).  This works and I used the same mechanism for my
HistoryRecorder but it doesn't feel quite right to me.

Should I open a bug report for the FailureRecorder in a forked JVM problem?

Thanks,
-Clark A.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message