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: [testing] code for exotic configurations
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:51:01 GMT

Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Do you mean that for a single test that verifies 10 lines of code
> working on very specific configuration I have to create a parallel test tree?

The model I had in my head was based on two things - making it easy for 
the casual browser to figure out what is what, and making it simple to 
maintain our infrastructure.

I imagine that we have a big pool of unit tests that work on the boring, 
everyday, non-exotic situations.  For ease of comprehension and use, 
that's in


so then our test framework can be configure to just run every test it 
finds in there.  With ant driving junit, it's easy - just write and drop 
  in that tree.  it will get run.

Then, if we have odd tests, like "test that can only be run on tuesday 
on sparc when moon is full and I had a cheese sandwhich the day before", 
  we can have a 'odd test' tree


and then because you have all those conditions to setup (tuesday, 
sandwhich, moon...) you'll have to have a more exotic config for the 
test harness anyway, so you will have to call out that test by name 
anyway in the config, and thus when you are browsing through 
oddtest/java tree, you'll know that in order to undertand the context of 
any test you find in there, you need to look back at the test harness to 
know what's going on.

See what I mean?

> What about tests that work in two different exotic configurations? Should
> we duplicate them?



> Thanks,
> Mikhail
> On 1/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> one solution is to simply group the "exotic" tests separately from the
>> main tests, so they can be run optionally when you are in that exotic
>> configuration.
>> You can do this in several ways, including a naming convention, or
>> another parallel code tree of the tests...
>> I like the latter, as it makes it easier to "see"
>> geir
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> Well let's start a new thread as this is more general problem.
>>> So if we have some code designed for some exotic configurations
>>> and we have tests that verify that exotic code.
>>> The test when run in usual configuration (not exotic one) should
>>> report something that would not scare people. But if one
>>> wants to test that specific exotic configuration that he should be
>>> able to easily verify that he successfully made required conf and
>>> the test worked well.
>>> The following options I see here:
>>> 1) introduce a new test status (like skipped) to mark those tests that
>>> did not actually run
>>> 2) agree on exact wording that the skipped tests would print to allow
>>> grep logs later
>>> 3) introduce tests-indicators that would fail when current
>>> configuration disallow
>>> running certain tests
>>> Please let me know what you think
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail Loenko
>>> Intel Middleware Products Division

View raw message