cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject [IMPASSIONED PLEA] Naming and structuring test materials
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:01:18 GMT
We have about 10 copies of the hello world schema floating around the
tree.

The idea is that wsdl-first and code-first test schemas and
implementation should live in testutils. The problem, from my jaundiced
point of view, is that we have been dumping things into there without
enough care in picking names.

For example, someone put a copy of the hello_world 'greeter' schema into
testutils, but modified it to use the XML binding. 

In my opinion, it should have been renamed and renamespaced to in the
process. The current state is unproductive in two ways.

First, new people looking for a test case schema are prone to do what I
did, which is see it, try to use it, and then belatedly run into the XML
binding specification. And then have to back up and turn around.

Second, it turns the testutils into a confusing arena in which no one
really knows what we have for inventory.

It looks to me as if another process is to take some example we get in a
test case, and check it in, 'as is'. I can see the reason to do this:
ultimately, the user's test is the regression test. However, there are
all kinds of opportunities for unexpected classpath and namespace
conflicts this way. I wonder if we should 'pom' these regressions as
individual sub-projects of systests so that they ran in comparative
isolation from each other.

While I'm inventing work with no one to do it, I'd propose that:

a) all the services used in the demos should be in testutils, verbatim,
and we should routinely run unit tests against those services. 

b) Some cleanup of the existing inventory would be helpful. I'll do at
least a little bit.

c) Some wiki-writing explaining the inventory would be helpful.

--benson



Mime
View raw message