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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:22:13 GMT
Hi George,

another example: implementation of SecureRandom might depend on
file:/dev/random

So, depending on OS, the bytes produced by my implementation of
SecureRandom might be not too random or too secure.

How do you consider  the test that verifies behavior of *my* code
that depends on OS? Is it unit or system?

Thanks,
Mikhail

On 1/29/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Comments inlined below.
>
> Best regards,
> George
> IBM UK
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > 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>
> >
>
> Would you like to give us some more examples ?
>
> > 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 :).
>
> That was not my interpretation of what Anton wrote. What do you consider
> is actually being tested by a unit test ? Is it *just your code* or is
> it *your code plus the system around it* ? I am really keen to hear your
> answer as I think it lies at the very heart of this discussion.
>
>
> >  Tests that do not include their own J2SE are system ones,
> > as they rely on environment.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate a bit more on this point please ?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> That is a system test issue not a unit test issue.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message