Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of davidkarlsen@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=Ub2liuI8p/oXoKflICv59rkCTEcv5x5UEuA4CNUScOOGyhCgFpuIskgnJmOhEmoQ3M
         711O1gYLB+LvPEeM8gZu53G226LgxbXqu50UbC7deyOL7AnmdpeG/5y49qBFWYe3P3Q9
         1VRX8Vp5gK8Ey9w+/6HnFf1OWcxzLfEnCW/Uc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DC26A3F.2060705@sopera.com>
References: <1304585813761-4372286.post@n5.nabble.com>
	<4DC26A3F.2060705@sopera.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:26:54 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTikjS=cdGPHaLZMTLoujJ4chOwiWFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Conceptual 'correctness' of using Camel Unit Tests
From: David Karlsen <davidkarlsen@gmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c92a3fad718804a2875305

--001636c92a3fad718804a2875305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Can they be run in parallel - or can modules be run in parallel - that could
speed things up.

2011/5/5 Christian Schneider <christian.schneider@sopera.com>

> I think it is only named wrong. The camel test support is written to
> support integration
> tests not unit tests.
>
> I think it is a very good idea to write real unit tests and integration
> tests. The unit tests are extremly fast and give you a first security. Still
> the integration tests are very important as many errors can only be spotted
> this way.
>
> I think at the moment camel uses a quite pragmatic test concept. Each
> component comes with unit tests and integration tests. As long as the tests
> are fast I think there is no big problem with that.
>
> All in all the problem is though that a whole camel build takes aroung 4
> hours. So we might really be able to do that better. A problem here is
> though the big number of components we have.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 05.05.2011 10:56, schrieb Gert Villemos:
>
>  Some would argue that a unit test per definition tests the unit completely
>> standalone. Using JUnit this is easy, especially when combined with
>> Spring,
>> i.e. you can isolate your bean and test each method directly.
>>
>> The Camel Junit on the other hand test the unit as part of a camle route.
>> Even if the route is very simple such as
>>
>> <route>
>>   <from uri="direct:in"/>
>>   <to uri="bean:myBean"/>
>>   <to uri="mock:out"/>
>> </route>
>>
>> Still, It's testing my bean in a context that is more than just using the
>> bean methods.
>>
>> The Camel in Action book 'only' list on benefit of using Camel Junit
>> tests,
>> namely simplification of the unit tests. I would like to hear what the
>> rest
>> of you do / think.
>>
>> - Do you use only Camel Junit tests using routes?
>>
>> - Do  you use 'normal' method oriented JUnit tests for low level tests of
>> individual methods combined with Camel Unit tests for
>> 'component/application' level testing?
>>
>> - Do you see a conceptual problem in unit testing using Camel JUnit?
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Conceptual-correctness-of-using-Camel-Unit-Tests-tp4372286p4372286.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> CXF and Camel Architect
> SOPERA - The Application Integration Division of Talend
> http://www.talend.com
>
>


-- 
--
David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen

--001636c92a3fad718804a2875305--