cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <>
Subject Re: Tests that actually assert something
Date Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:00:59 GMT
Another thing about tests: Must we put all these tests in systests? Its 
kind of annoying to not actually have tests which test JAX-WS in the 
JAX-WS module. I can make the jax-ws tests pass when there are major 
things wrong with them. No reason we shouldn't be testing things with 
the local transport and soap binding in the jax-ws test module in my mind.


- Dan

Glynn, Eoghan wrote:

>Just a quick note to stress the importance of tests that actually assert
>the expected behaviors have occurred, as opposed to just assuming
>everything is OK as long the feature in question hasn't blown up.
>The specific case I've in mind is the handler system test, which uses
>the JAX-WS @HandlerChanin annotation to install the server-side handler
>chain. Only it doesn't, because this annotation isn't yet supported. So
>the test sails through to a pass, even though nothing is actually being
>tested on the server-side.
>Note that this is an underlying issue in the test as opposed the
>CeltiXfire handler support (which is still a work in progress). The test
>was ported over from the old Celtix codebase (which obviously supported
>the @HandlerChain), but didn't fail-fast against the new codebase as one
>would expect. 
>The reason I bring this up is that the use of the handlers.xml in the
>handler system test led me to assume incorrectly I could use the same
>feature in a WS-A system test.

Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC

View raw message