db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dyre.Tjeldv...@Sun.COM
Subject Re: Unit-tests in Junit?
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:13:38 GMT
John Embretsen <John.Embretsen@Sun.COM> writes:

> Kristian Waagan wrote:
>> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> It seems to me that unit tests are not functionTests, and because of
>>> that, I'd say to add a junit framework to the unit test area...
>>> However, we obviously run the existing 'unit' tests as part of our
>>> functionTests, so it really is one big pot at the moment. If it's
>>> easier to add a 'unit' directory to the functionTests area, I'd have
>>> no problems with that approach either...
>
> This would have been easy had it not been for the existing "unit"
> tests. They have their own package structure (and harness) under
> derbyTesting.unitTests, as well as a bunch of .properties files in
> derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.unit (and suite files under
> functionTests.suites...). So it seems that both of the clean/obvious
> options are taken - that is unless we change or move the existing unit
> tests (I think it would be confusing to mix old ("unit") and new
> (JUnit) unit tests in the same package structure). I'm afraid I don't
> have a good suggestion for how to solve this yet...

Hmm, so we're right back right where we started out... well I hope we'll
reach some form of consensus eventually :)

(Personally I'm less sure that it that important to map the various
classifications onto the package/directory structure. I would prefer a
simpler/flatter package structure that could accomodate a variety of
tests without modification to the structure. Grouping/classification
could be done using Junit features (suites and labeling). But as usual;
I seem to be the only one that thinks so... :)

-- 
dt


Mime
View raw message