Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:14:36 +0200
From: Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waagan@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [junit] Move JUnit base/utility classes???
In-reply-to: <44E331AE.20400@apache.org>
Sender: Kristian.Waagan@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44EAE71C.6000905@Sun.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <44E21B61.8060402@apache.org> <44E237B7.60206@sun.com>
 <44E30089.9010802@sun.com> <44E31CDA.9080907@apache.org>
 <44E321EF.9060808@sun.com> <44E331AE.20400@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; no-NO;
 rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060730
 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 
>>> I don't see any value in this, the existing layput looks fine to me.
>>>
>>> org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.functionalTests.tests.jdbcapi
>>> org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.unitTests.lang
>>> org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.systemTests.app1 (future)
>>>
>> (Note: existing layout does not have .junit.)
> (sorry copy & paste error)
> 
>> The value would have been to separate out the junit tests from the other
>> tests, however I understand it is not prioritized and possibly not worth
>> the effort.
> 
> once they are all JUnit though there is no benefit :-)

Hi,

I still have a question regarding the placement of JUnit tests. I have 
brought this up before, but got very little response (I did get some, 
see below).

Do we want to support [unit] testing of package private classes?
The easiest solution to achieve this is to keep a mirrored/separate 
source tree, where the tests are put into the corresponding Derby 
production code package (for instance 'org.apache.derby.iapi.types').

Andrew brought up the concern wrt building and distribution. We do not 
want to include the testing classes in the releases. Further, JAR 
sealing is causing headaches (unable to distribute the test classes in a 
separate JAR).

If people have more opinions at this time, I would like to hear them. If 
not, I'll nag the list again at a later time :)


-- 
Kristian

> 
> Dan.
>