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 15:33:38 GMT

Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> If the test can be configured by a few people only who works on that
>>> specific area and those people are aware of those tests why not just
>>> print a log when the test is skipped?
>> Because the same set of people that will be bothered by separate suites
>> will have the same reaction to skipped tests.
> By 'skipped' in this context I meant that the test did not verify the code but
> reported the 'passed' status. That set of people will not even notice
> these tests.

I don't think you want that either.  I think you want the test to not be 

We're going to automate this whole thing, and we may want to know when a 
given test broke.  If it's falsely reporting "pass", we'll get confused.


> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>> This is why I advocate making a "separate tree" for the system tests -
>> make it clear that they are not the general unit tests...
>>> It would not disturb most of the people because the test will pass in 'bad'
>>> environment. But those, who know about these tests will sometimes grep
>>> logs to validate configuration.
>> IMO, there's too much special information there, too much config.  I'm a
>> simple person, and like things clean and simple.  I don't like to mix
>> concerns when possible, and here's a place where it's definitely
>> possible to separate cleanly.
>> I don't see the downside.
>> geir
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mikhail
>>>> Alternatively, they could be
>>>> included as part of a general test suite but be purposely skipped over at
>>>> test execution time using a
>>>> test exclusion list understood by the test runner.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> George
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> George C. Harley
>>>> Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>>>> 27/01/2006 08:53
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> To
>>>> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> cc
>>>> Subject
>>>> Re: [testing] code for exotic configurations
>>>> Anton Avtamonov wrote:
>>>>>> Note that I could create my own provider and test with it, but what
>>>> would
>>>>>> really want is to test how my EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo works with
>>>>>> AlgorithmParameters from real provider as well as how my other classes
>>>> work
>>>>>> with real implementations of crypto Engines.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mikhail.
>>>>> Hi Mikhail,
>>>>> There are 'system' and 'unit' tests. Traditionally, unit tests are of
>>>>> developer-level. Each unit test is intended to test just a limited
>>>>> piece of functionality separately from other sub-systems (test for one
>>>>> fucntion, test for one class, etc). Such tests must create a desired
>>>>> environment over the testing fucntionality and run the scenario in the
>>>>> predefined conditions. Unit tests usually able to cover all scenarios
>>>>> (execution paths) for the tested parts of fucntionality.
>>>>> What are you talking about looks like 'system' testing. Such tests
>>>>> usually run on the real environment and test the most often scenarious
>>>>> (the reduntant set, all scenarios usually cannot be covered). Such
>>>>> testing is not concentrated on the particular fucntionality, but
>>>>> covers the work of the whole system.
>>>>> A sample is: "run some demo application on some particular platform,
>>>>> with some particular providers installed and perform some operations".
>>>>> I think currently we should focus on 'unit' test approach since it is
>>>>> more applicable during the development (so my advise is to revert your
>>>>> tests to install 'test' providers with the desired behavior as George
>>>>> proposed).
>>>>> However we should think about 'system' scenarios which can be run on
>>>>> the later stage and act as 'verification' of proper work of the entire
>>>>> system.
>>>> I agree with all this.  The unit tests are one style of test for
>>>> establishing the correctness of the code.  As you point out the unit
>>>> tests typically require a well-defined environment in which to run, and
>>>> it becomes a judgment-call as to whether a particular test's
>>>> environmental requirements are 'reasonable' or not.
>>>> For example, you can reasonably expect all developers to have an
>>>> environment to run unit tests that has enough RAM and a writable disk
>>>> etc. such that if those things do not exist the tests will simply fail.
>>>>  However, you may decide it is unreasonable to expect the environment to
>>>> include a populated LDAP server, or a carefully configured RMI server.
>>>> If you were to call that environment unreasonable then testing JNDI and
>>>> RMI would likely involve mock objects etc. to get good unit tests.
>>>> Of course, as you point out, once you are passing the unit tests you
>>>> also need the 'system' tests to ensure the code works in a real
>>>> environment.  Usage scenarios based on the bigger system are good, as is
>>>> running the bigger system's test suite on our runtime.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anton Avtamonov,
>>>>> Intel Middleware Products Division
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.

View raw message