db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Watzek <mwa.t...@spree.de>
Subject Re: JIRA JDO-48
Date Wed, 25 May 2005 09:32:01 GMT
Hi Craig,

>> 2) Furthermore, we add 2 methods to class JDOTest which may be used 
>> for registering persistence capable instances and persistence capable 
>> classses. The default implementation of localTearDown() cleans up all 
>> registered persistent data.
> 
> 
> We need method names. I'm thinking that we add tear down instances and 
> classes. So, addTearDownInstance(Object) and addTearDownClass(Class). Or 
> just registerTearDown(Object) where the parameter might be a persistent 
> object, an oid, or a class.
What about this:

addTearDownObjectId(Object)
addTearDownInstance(Object)
addTearDownClass(Class)

> 
>>
>> 3) We change all tests in order to comply to 1) and 2).
> 
> 
> This needs just a bit of extra thought. Some test cases assume that 
> there are some instances in the database and if there are none, create 
> some. It's not clear that there is any issue for these cases, so we 
> should not arbitrarily clean up.
In a first step, I suggest to adapt all life cycle tests. If there are 
life cycle tests relying on the execution of other life cycle tests, 
then I'll take care that those tests set up the database properly. If 
there are non-life cycle tests, relying on the execution of life cycle 
tests, then those tests will fail. In that case, I'll adapt those tests 
also.

What do you think?
Regards,
Michael
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek                  Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
mailto:mwa.tech@spree.de        Buelowstr. 66
Tel.:  ++49/30/235 520 36       10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.:  ++49/30/217 520 12       http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message