commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject RE: [jelly] http and validation tag libraries
Date Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:26:37 GMT
Hey Vincent,

don't think about it as too similar to the way we write test cases. 

JUnit is built so that the testXXX() methods are not a requirement. We 
don't have to generate the methods themselves, we could have an adaptor 
that overrides the run method of the test class for example.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers

"Vincent Massol" <vmassol@octo.com> wrote on 06/30/2002 04:04:01 AM:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dion@multitask.com.au [mailto:dion@multitask.com.au]
> > Sent: 29 June 2002 09:39
> > To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: [jelly] http and validation tag libraries
> > 
> > I've been looking at how Latka could leverage Jelly's infrastructure,
> and
> > it boils down to a few things:
> > - a http tag library covering latka's existing tags
> > - a 'validation' tag library for validating results/jelly variables
> > - a junit bridge to make jelly scripts runnable as unit tests.
> 
> Wrapping a Jelly script around a JUnit TestCase so that it can be run by
> any TestRunner would be real nice .. ! However, I think that will break
> the JUnit model a bit because you'll end up having only one testXXX()
> method (in the bridge) and all your test cases will be in jelly script.
> 
> Ideally we would need a way to have as many testXXX() methods as there
> are test cases in our jelly scripts ... but how ?
> 
> Let's say you have an XML script describing your test cases like the
> following :
> 
> <tests>
>   <test name="xxx">
>   [...]
>   </test>
>   <test name="yyy">
>   [...]
>   </test>
> </tests>
> 
> We would need the ability to generate a TestCase class with testXxx()
> and testYyy() methods ... but that's not very easy to do (thinking aloud
> really).
> 
> We could have a specific TestRunner but then we loose the ability to run
> our tests in any existing TestRunner, including all JUnit integrations
> in IDEs.
> 
> -Vincent
> 
> > 
> > For the jelliers out there, how does this sound?
> > --
> > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> > Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
> > Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
<mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
<mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message