db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Features of the JUnit test execution harness
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:51:31 GMT
On 1/31/06, Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waagan@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Differences in output should be irrelevant. Although not what you
> mentioned above, the issue of (execution) control is very relevant. The
> logic for running the tests multiple times, each time with a different
> setup/environment must be located somewhere. I think Andreas' proposal
> of introducing a separate JUnit test type (see
> http://www.nabble.com/running-JUnit-tests-t887682.html#a2300670) makes
> sense, as it gives us more freedom w.r.t. handling of JUnit tests.


 Yes, that proposal made sense to me. I personally like the approach of
having a class for various/different configurations. Although that could get
out of hand.

Does this 'throw away' the work that Rick is doing on DERBY-874?

 Following Andreas' approach we'd still be able to run the individual tests
separately, yes?


> Thanks for the answer Myrna. And good work on the readme!

credit due: many people have reviewed, and improved it...

> <snip>
> Right now I feel that it is very hard to start writing a new JUnit
> harness, since the old harness seem to contain a lot of functionality
> and "magic". I wonder if it would be best to just start
> converting/writing some tests and create a framework along the way.


Yes, a new harness is hard, and yes, the old harness has been made to adapt
to many different needs...and we should take those into account. (I'll add
some thoughts on that wiki soon). But the old harness has grown unwieldy and
hard to maintain and is slow. To take what we learned and craft it
onto something new will be better, though daunting.

Some ideas of Dan's are in this thread from about a year ago:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200503.mbox/%3C422605A7.6020207@debrunners.com%3E


The above approach would probably result in several major rewritings of
> "the new framework" and the existing JUnit tests, but it might be better
> than thinking out everything at once (that's hard!). Perhaps I will
> rewrite an old test I have been working a little on, and put it out for
> review and comments, unless someone else beats me to it ;)

--
> Kristian
>
Personally, I do better when I have code to prod and modify through
iterations...
I'd be interested to review.

Myrna

Mime
View raw message