avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gavin Jones <gavin.jo...@windriver.com>
Subject Re: [Testlet] Why another unit test framework?
Date Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:09:39 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote:

> > > But then I discovered that Avalon contains it's own Unit test framework
> > > and I thought, "oh no - not another API to learn, what's wrong with JUnit?
> :) Just what I thought at first. But then, extending AbstractTestlet and
> writing testXxx() methods is hardly a big learning curve.

Exactly. JUnit has a learning curve of roughly 5 minutes (exagerated for the point
:). The Testlet API has about the same learning curve, and even less for someone
who already knows JUnit.

In searching for a flexible and extensible test framework, we found that JUnit does
not suffice, for example if you needed to change what "results" you gathered, it
was impossible to do so without "hacking" junit from the bottom up (test runner,
test case, test result).... there wasnt a "pluggable" architecture where you could
change these things with ease.  JUnit doesnt report well - the description of
successful test cases dont appear in the result.  The authors of JUnit, themselves,
note that the framework is not really extensible due to its high pattern density.
(When I say extensible I mean the framework itself, not the testcases). I'm still
in the progress of looking for alternative test frameworks and although testlet is
not quite there, it could be without hardly as much work as JUnit.  If you look in
the guts of JUnit there are some odd things like that fact the test result actually
runs the tests (the result of the collecting parameter pattern) and other
implementation oddities that I haven't witnessed in Testlet.

My two sense (cents),

To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message