cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fred Dushin <f...@dushin.net>
Subject Re: [IMPASSIONED PLEA] Naming and structuring test materials
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:11:39 GMT

On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> 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.

I agree.

>
> 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.

I understand why the testutils stuff is there, but I don't like it.   
The idea is to shorten build times, by putting a common set of  
functionality in a JAR, and re-use to your heart's content.

My problem with that is re-use doesn't always work, so you get what  
you observe -- lots of test-specific functionality in testutils.   
(Look at hello_world_secure.wsdl, for an example).

What would be better (IMO) would be to possible put base schema and  
logical WSDL types in testutils, and then have the actual tests  
import these schema and WSDL from system tests, but only if it makes  
sense.  You'd still "pay" for code generation during the build, but  
that's life in the fast lane.  The current approach leads to spaghetti.


>
> 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.

Wouldn't there me a maintenance issue there?  I'd rather see the  
sample programs run as part of a build.

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

That would be good.  I'd offer to help with the security stuff, but  
I'm flat out right now.

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

RoTR would be good in this area.

>
> --benson
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message