harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikhail Loenko <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [testing] code for exotic configurations
Date Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:13:29 GMT
Hi Anton,

On 1/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Anton Avtamonov <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry for being away during the major part of your discussion. Hope
> > I'm still not too late.
> >
> > As I can see currently we have only one 'exotic' situation - some
> > tests which are based on providers and use so many provider's
> > fucntionality that cannot be replaced with mock objects in a
> > reasonable time.

You have only one example, not one situation - there is a difference... <g>

Harmony has a modular structure and final product may be assembled from
the modules we can not even think of yet. And the only thing we know about
those modules is that they follow the spec.

You likely know, security module that does not have any provider or any
algorithm implementation follows the spec :). How do you think, will
java.util or java.crypto work without those implementations? No.

So, following your logic, all unit tests should either do not rely on
other modules
or include their own implementation of those modules (and better - full J2SE
implementation :). Tests that do not include their own J2SE are system ones,
as they rely on environment.

What I think is we have to be ready that some functionality would be unusable
or untestable in some situations and our tests/framework would better
be ready for it.


View raw message