db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-4249) Create a simple store recovery test in JUnit
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:28:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13063482#comment-13063482
] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-4249:
-------------------------------------------

The -m command line option was added in JUnit 3.8.2, so it won't work with 3.8.1. (3.8.2 is
the version we tell people to download in BUILDING.html, by the way.) There used to be problems
with running the Java ME tests on 3.8.2 (according to http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/JunitVmIssues)
but they seem to affect Foundation 1.0 only, which we don't support anymore. So hopefully
a dependency on 3.8.2 would be fine these days.

> Create a simple store recovery test in JUnit
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-4249
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4249
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Test
>    Affects Versions: 10.6.1.0
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>            Assignee: Siddharth Srivastava
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: d4249.diff
>
>
> It would be good to be able to start converting the store  recovery tests  or at least
be able to write new recovery tests in JUnit.   We could start by writing a simple recovery
test just to establish the framework.  The test should.
> -  Connect, create a table, commit and shutdown the database.
> -  fork a jvm, add one row, commit, add another row, exit  the jvm.
> -  Reconnect with the first jvm and verify that the first row is there and the second
is not.
> I guess the main thing to decide is how to spawn the second jvm and check results.  
 I tend to think the second jvm should actually execute another JUnit test, verify the exit
code (assuming a failed test has a non-zero exit code) and then put the output in the fail
assertion if it fails so it shows up in the report at the end of the Suite execution.   I
think we could create a test runner that takes a class and a specific test to run instead
of the whole suite, so we could keep our methods consolidated in a single class for the test,
but all pure conjecture at this point.  I'll have to give it a try, but wanted to first see
if folks thought this was a reasonable approach.
>  

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message