geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <>
Subject Re: Re[2]: [PATCH] JUnit test for org.apache.geronimo.cache.SimpleInstanceCache
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:49:44 GMT

On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 12:04  am, Ed Letifov wrote:

> Hello Bruce,
> EL>> Anyway, the test is in the attachment. As I said before: started 
> with
> EL>> the simplest, hope it helps.
> BS> I can certainly commit this test as I'll be writing a bunch of 
> these
> BS> later tonight.
> Thank you, but still, how does one submit multiple new files? As a jar
> archive to achieve portability and preserve directory/package
> structure?

Sure, that'd be cool.

> BS>  However, I'd like to try to make a decision on what we're
> BS> going to do to to determine spec coverage first. Although spec 
> coverage
> BS> is crucial, we also just need some simple test coverage of the 
> existing
> BS> code base.
> Understood. I guess while you are making this decision having the 
> simple test
> coverage growing won't hurt?

Absolutely not. The more unit tests the merrier in my book.

> BS> I'm wondering if there's a need for two kinds of tests - unit and
> BS> spec. Of course, these two can be achieved in the same * 
> files
> BS> and separated simply by a comment line.
> I personally like the 'separate spec test' idea more, but I have to
> admit that a gut feeling exists that it will end up in the same files,
> and moreover without that comment line.

I'd prefer to keep them separate. Unit tests tend to be focussed on 1 
class at a time. Functional tests typically work on a collection of 
classes. We should probably have different package trees for them. e.g. 
use the org.apache.geronimo.functional package for any functional tests 


View raw message