directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christoph Engelbert <noctar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MemoryBuffer interface
Date Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:10:13 GMT
Am 24.10.2012 22:08, schrieb Johannes.Lichtenberger:
> On 10/24/2012 09:39 PM, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2012 21:21, schrieb Johannes.Lichtenberger:
>>> On 10/24/2012 09:03 PM, Christoph Engelbert wrote:
>>>> Am 24.10.2012 21:01, schrieb Christoph Engelbert:
>>>>> Am 24.10.2012 21:00, schrieb Olivier Lamy:
>>>>>> 2012/10/24 Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Really, really good. Well, if all tests pass why not starting
>>>>>>> pushing the
>>>>>>> changes to svn? :-)
>>>>>> +1 :-)
>>>>> I guess there are no Unsafe unittests at the moment ;-) The other
>>>>> tests already passed.
>>>>
>>>> PS: I think it would be good to use JUnit Parameterized tests that
>>>> the same test is executed for every available MemoryManager /
>>>> Allocator.
>>>
>>> BTW: This is really great in TestNG using the @DataProvider
>>> annotation together with @Test(dataProvider = "foo").
>>>
>>
>> JUnit has the same ability using @Parameters
>> http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-tutorial-6-parameterized-test/
>> ;-)
>
> Great, didn't know about this annotation :-)
>
> According to [1] from the same guy, however it seems that the
> TestNG parameters are more powerful (not restricted to primitives).
>

Not restricted to primitives ;-)

    @Parameters
    public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
        return Arrays.asList( new Object[][] {{new
MemoryManagerServiceImpl<Object>()},{new
UnsafeMemoryManagerServiceImpl<Object>()}} );
    }


> kind regards,
> Johannes
>
> [1] http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-vs-testng-comparison/
>


Mime
View raw message