harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: regression test suite
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:30:21 GMT


Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
>>Tim Ellison wrote:
>>
>>>Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, the existing tests
>>>hardly need organizing (all three of them!) -- but let's go mad and
>>>assume we have lots of tests housed in our repository.
>>
>>Not really, as there are quite a few in the intel security contribution.
> 
> 
> That's unfair!  It hadn't been accepted when I wrote that! :-)

LOL :)

> 
> 
>> (3?  That's pathetic!)
> 
> 
> Hey, you have commit rights everywhere -- go for it!
> 
> They are regression unit tests to match the issues fixed so far.  I
> think a 'ten test-case penalty' is appropriate for every name-calling
> incident ;-)  Besides as others have said, there are other test suites
> out there.

We'll incorporate that too.

> 
> 
>>>What is the useful distinction for regression tests being kept separate?
>>> I can see that you may distinguish unit and 'system-level' tests just
>>>because of the difference in frameworks etc. required, but why do I care
>>>if the test was written due to a JIRA issue or test-based development or
>>>someone who get's kicks out of writing tests to break the code?
>>
>>Well, it's been my experience that unit tests generally are fairly
>>straightforward and isolated, where a regression test used to
>>demonstrate a bug might be fairly complicated, incorporating more than
>>the single unit you are trying to test/fix/debug/whatever.
> 
> 
> Well like I wrote, I can see that distinction and agree -- but
> complexity is not based on whether it is a regression or not.  Put the
> test into a unit test bucket if it sits naturally there, otherwise it is
> in a suite that may require more complex set-up/environment etc. and
> maybe some scenario driving.

That works.  THat's all I really wanted.

> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>I've never used TestNG, so have no opinion at the moment.  What's so
>>>good about it?
>>
>>I'll report back.
>>
>>Since we have no current setup for tests, I'll assume some leeway to
>>take a run at it as there are no existing toes to step on.  First task
>>will be to get your 3 [pathetic! :) ] unit tests running
> 
> 
> Well now the security contribution has been accepted your task has grown.

Shouldn't be too hard.  I want to work this upwards to the root too, to 
start doing this broadly.

geir

> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 

Mime
View raw message