deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Kaltepoth <christ...@kaltepoth.de>
Subject Re: basic decisions: test setup
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:30:43 GMT
I also prefer JUnit over TestNG. JUnit recently catched up with TestNG
in regard to features and JUnit integrates better with Arquillian. I
also like that JUnit is supported by Eclipse out of the box.


2011/12/16 José Rodolfo Freitas <joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com>:
> I've been using arquillian + junit, and it does the job nicely.
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Marek Schmidt <maschmid@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2011 09:38 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Another round of discussion - this time about how to setup our unit
>>> testing and integration testing.
>>>
>>> I think it's pretty much clear that we will gonna use Arquillian for all
>>> our tests. That was also fundamental part of the incubator proposal.
>>> And instead of inventing yet another abstraction layer, I'd favour to
>>> just use Arquillian and contribute all things we need to this project.
>>> So here a formal vote
>>>
>>> 1.)
>>>
>>> for using Arquillian as test integration framework.
>>>  +1 from me
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.)
>>>
>>> What do we like to use from the unit tests itself? TestNG or JUnit?
>>> JUnit has better Arquillian integration and TestNG is better for 'real
>>> world' projects, because it allows to define test dependencies.
>>> So which one to take?
>>>
>>
>> There is now org.jboss.arquillian.junit.**InSequence annotation in
>> arquillian for use with junit, which I believe could be used for those use
>> cases where one would use TestNG test dependencies...
>>
>>
>>  But we should definitely only use 1 of the two exclusively!
>>>
>>> 3.)
>>> 'Integrated' tests vs 'Integration Tests'
>>> We have 2 options to test our projects
>>>
>>> 3.a.) create a full unit test in each module (e.g. deltaspike/core/impl)
>>> and add a profile for each and every server (maybe we can trim this down
>>> with pom imports?).
>>> Then run the build with one after each other:
>>>
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Powb
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Pweld
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Powb-tc
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Pweld-tc
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Pgf31
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Pas7
>>> $>  mvn clean test -Ptomee
>>>
>>> This might pretty much blow up our poms...
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.b) create a full unit test in each module (e.g. deltaspike/core/impl)
>>> and add only 2 profiles directly ('weld' and 'owb' (probably resin later))
>>> Then add a deltaspike/test/base/core with the very basic parent stuff and
>>> 1 module for each integrated container, e.g.
>>> deltaspike/test/weld-tc
>>> deltaspike/test/owb-tc
>>> deltaspike/test/weld-jetty
>>> deltaspike/test/owb-jetty
>>> deltaspike/test/tomee
>>> deltaspike/test/gf31
>>> deltaspike/test/geronimo
>>> deltaspike/test/websphere
>>> deltaspike/test/as7
>>> deltaspike/test/as6
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> The initial setup costs are higher, but it would be pretty easy to add
>>> new containers that way.
>>>
>>> Which route shall we take?
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal

Mime
View raw message