Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22312 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2009 11:47:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Mar 2009 11:47:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 22276 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2009 11:47:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 22242 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2009 11:47:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 22231 invoked by uid 99); 14 Mar 2009 11:47:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:47:35 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [69.18.222.49] (HELO smtp3.4emm.com) (69.18.222.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:47:26 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (77.249.59.207) by SMTP.4emm.com (192.168.161.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.336.0; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:46:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Dennis Geurts To: "dev@felix.apache.org" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Testing set up (Was: Re: [jira] Resolved: (FELIX-10) Implement Device Access) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:47:02 +0100 References: <1201574793.1236811251308.JavaMail.jira@brutus> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 14 mrt 2009, at 09:48, Filippo Diotalevi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dennis Geurts > wrote: >> Hi all, >> Some questions about testing within the Apache Felix project in >> general: >> The pom/pom.xml defines dependencies to: >> - easymock 1.2 (the jdk1.3 type) and >> - junit 3.8.1 >> Is there a special rationale for using these versions ? >> I can understand the need being able to support jdk 1.4 and earlier >> for the >> actual delivered binaries, but does/ should this also hold for the >> tests ? >> I've seen enormous improvements in both junit 4 and easymock 2.4 >> and (like >> to) use it in my tests. > > Hi Dennis, > thank you so much for raising this point, I think it's very > important. > As other people reminded, there might be reason to stay (tests run on > old devices) with jdk 1.4. > > However, imho, sticking to jdk 1.4 is preventing Felix to have > comprehensive test suite. In my projects I use JUnit4 and mockito and > I can easily reach a 70% coverage; on the other side, having written > unit tests for the fileinstall bundle, I can certify how painful, > improductive and fragile are tests written with easymock 1.2 (let me > just add, the improvement would be much higher moving to mockito > rather then easymock 2.4). > > So I think that's the tradeoff to discuss: being able to run tests on > old devices, or having Java5-based test tools so we can write more > complete unit tests? > > wdyt? Hi Filippo, I'd personally favor being able to write (lots of) tests that are readable/ understandable, especially if the codebase is being maintained by a larger group of people. Anything we can do to encourage people to write tests should be considered. (imho) Dennis > > -- > Filippo Diotalevi