harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Test framework
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:32:33 GMT
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we move the implementation
classes onto the application classpath -- as you say, there would be a
riot of renaming and native fix-ups required that would make this a
non-trivial task.


Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> I think allowing tests to be fully executable in Java (i.e. a
> certified jvm) would be really tricky. Some black-magic to rename all
> classes would be required, and testing some core functionality would
> be really hard - think synchronization and threading.
> But for most classes this is perfectly doable. Just rename everything
> but some core classes (Object, String and a few more final ones) to be
> in the test.* package. For example, java.util.ArrayList would be
> test.java.util.ArrayList. I think this could work, most of the times,
> and allow testing harmony classlib inside a jvm.
> But then, the real advantage of doing this would be if we could
> compare the results between a certified jvm and harmony and sport
> mismatched results. I just can't see many bugs been caught by this
> approach only.
> Rodrigo
> On 1/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> One thing that's popped up on the "Test suite layout" thread is the
>> thought that we need to b0rk the canonical package and naming
>> conventions for unit tests in order to be able to run things on the boot
>> classpath of the VM.  I think this issue is important enough and
>> fundamental enough to warrant it's own thread.
>> First, do we really need to do this?  I thought that we (Tim and I) had
>> informally discussed this at ApacheCon and came to some good conclusion
>> where we were able to figure out a trick.
>> Second, shouldn't we think about providing a test environment in which
>> we can completely control the environment  - we can test the class
>> library in a container that can be run in any VM so we have full control
>> over security and other issues?
>> Of course, I'd like both.  If we do have the "trick" that we talked
>> about, then we can use canonical JUnit (or TestNG) naming and package
>> conventions, which I think is important.
>> geir


Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

View raw message