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 06:41:36 GMT
P.S. There are also 'integration' tests that verify how different 'units'
work together.

I think the areas of various tests intersect and it would be good to define
them on this early stage

Thanks,
Mikhail

On 1/29/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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