commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <>
Subject RE: [Collections] Naming conventions
Date Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:11:14 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Jack, Paul wrote:
> > As far as your unit test campaign goes, I'm almost done going through
> > them.  I've got eight phases worked through right now, each 
> > building on
> > the previous.  I'm hoping to wrap them up and get them committed this
> > evening.
> I really hope we're not duplicating effort; for instance, I've already
> written a TestList that extends the TestCollection framework (it uses
> the verify() method to check against a confirmed collection, etc).  I
> haven't submitted it to the mailing list because I didn't want to 
> overwhelm.

Haven't touched TestList, so hopefully there isn't duplication of
effort.  I did, however, make changes to TestCollection, TestSet, and
TestMap (after applying your patch to my local tree).  Hopefully you
haven't made too many changes to those three since your June 10th patch.

>             Or are you just needing eight phases to make the changes
> less extreme in CVS?

Yes.  Your patch was huge, and I didn't want to commit it with a simple 
log message like "Enable new testing framework".  Here was the strategy 
I used:

 1 - add BulkTest (from your patch)
 2 - enhance TestCollection (from your patch)
 3 - more changes to TestCollection (my own changes)
 4 - add TestSet (from your patch)
 5 - changes to TestSet (my own changes)
 6 - enhance TestMap (from your patch)
 7 - more changes to TestMap (my own changes)
 8 - enable use of bulkTest methods (i.e. change "new TestSuite" to

If I'm remembering correctly, my changes to TestCollection, TestSet, and
TestMap varied from some simple/stylistic things[1] to reworkings of
some testing algorithms[2].  After all but one phase, the full
collections test suite ran without failures.  In that one case (either 
phase 4 of phase 6, I can't remember off the top of my head), it was a 
single failure that has already been filed as bug 9573. 

[1] simple/stylistic include things like changing javadoc method
cross-references from {@link #method} to {@link #method()} which makes
it a bit more clear when reading source whether its a link to a method
or a field.  This is especially helpful in TestMap where there is a 
method entrySet() and a field entrySet. 

[2] For example, I didn't particularly like the use of HashBag for 
verifications of Collections because you could be testing a broken class 
using the same broken class.  


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message