db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-516) Need to incorporate client backward/forward compatibility testing into testing procedures.
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:47:30 GMT
Sigh, massive update to the repository, as Oyvind warned.  I will do a 
clean build and run some subset of tests to make sure we're still OK.

David

Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I think that this is all speculation about what to do in the future as 
> we migrate existing tests into JUnit. No-one has proposed blocking this 
> patch. Please go ahead with the commit.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Rick
> 
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>> I am *this* close to checking in Rick's patch.  Should I hold off, or 
>> can we do this as a separate patch?
>>
>> David
>>
>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>> What I meant by "fork" is that we could introduce a new subdirectory 
>>> under org/apache/derbyTesting as Myrna suggested. Then, as tests were 
>>> converted to JUnit, we could move them from their old location to a 
>>> new location under the JUnitTests subdirectory. Moving would involve 
>>> svn-moving the test, which means that the old version would disappear 
>>> from the code tree. There would be only one version of the test in 
>>> the code tree. I agree that maintaining two independent copies would 
>>> be a bad idea.
>>>
>>> -Rick
>>>
>>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Embretsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> Myrna van Lunteren (JIRA) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally I also wondered if maybe these tests ought to be not
under
>>>>>>> org/apache/derbyTesting/functionTests/tests/compatibility, but
under
>>>>>>> org/apache/derbyTesting/JUnitTests/compatibility...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have strong religion about these points either. Concerning

>>>>>> the
>>>>>> last issue: I agree that a JUnitTests fork in the tree might help
us
>>>>>> track which of our existing tests we've migrated under JUnit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, I think we could avoid a lot of potential confusion regarding
>>>>> Derby testing in the future by having (from the start) an easy way to
>>>>> see which tests are written for JUnit and which are not, especially as
>>>>> more JUnit-based tests are added. Forking the derbyTesting source tree
>>>>> might be a good way to do this - at least I cannot come up with any
>>>>> better ideas at the moment.
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean forking, or just a separate directory structure within
>>>> derbyTesting?
>>>>
>>>> Forking means a copy of the tree developed independently, not sure why
>>>> we would want to go down that path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
> 

Mime
View raw message