Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.201 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=JkBm2rMGpzenY9uktVo/1MrjB82pqwghWC+wYu+7aVkwQ6aCNmgsmnX7A9z+exChY7mUTl8uQdGxSHVyzOcQ56d6Y/l0dc4G+FoLOPh7w0MjJSBoznlkHOEumb1/ePCmINB1Gn/p/yu05ycxCzaBYr3Vzv80Ngs/Yl4CpQ7DNSc=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0601160506r1024e73cj20175f3c0e67f3b0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:06:25 +0600
From: Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
In-Reply-To: 
 <OFC9340986.40FC1D4F-ON802570F8.00462A44-802570F8.0046793F@uk.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <906dd82e0601160427t54f1e6a6t97f94cea1250c718@mail.gmail.com>
	 <OFC9340986.40FC1D4F-ON802570F8.00462A44-802570F8.0046793F@uk.ibm.com>

On 1/16/06, George Harley1 <GHARLEY@uk.ibm.com> wrote:

> what script is this ?

We can update the tests or provide a script so that Tim or Geir could run i=
t
in repository to remove PerformanceTest super class and replace log() with
something.log()

Though it would not affect other super classes like SerializationTest.

Thanks,
Mikhail

>
>
> Best regards,
> George
> ________________________________________
> George C. Harley
>
>
>
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
> 16/01/2006 12:27
> Please respond to
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> To
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi George,
>
> Thanks for your clarifications
>
> Could you please try setting 'printAllowed' to false in the
> PerformanceTest.java?
> If the behavior you will see is what is more desired we can make it
> default.
>
> As for decorator class - if having a common super class for all the unit
> tests
> is not liked, it is easy to run the tests through the script and convert.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail Loenko
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
> On 1/16/06, George Harley1 <GHARLEY@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mikhail,
> >
> > Writing out a JUnit progress update to the console as the tests run
> > informing me which test is running is, I think you will agree, not
> really
> > adding much to the overall test experience for most developers. This is
> > because JUnit actually does a pretty good job of letting me know which
> > test is currently running on its own in addition to providing
> information
> > on any failures. So allow me to repeat a point made in my previous post
> on
> > this topic that appears to have been missed : if additional text output
> is
> > required during a unit test run then why not use a *decorator* class to
> do
> > this instead of baking it in near the top of the class inheritance
> > hierarchy ?
> >
> > As things stand right now, everyone will be forced to see hundreds of
> "=3D=3D
> > I am in test XXX =3D=3D=3D" output written to their console irrespectiv=
e of
> > whether they are actually currently assessing performance. Why make
> > writing out performance messages *mandatory* when running unit tests ?
> >
> > That was the central issue raised in my previous post - not a request t=
o
> > remove test cases. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make it
> once
> > again.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> > ________________________________________
> > George C. Harley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Loenko, Mikhail Y" <mikhail.y.loenko@intel.com>
> > 16/01/2006 04:42
> > Please respond to
> > harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> > To
> > <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > RE: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi George
> >
> > We will remove all the tests and these QA guys will never disturb us :)
> >
> > Every time we remove a test we leave something untested.
> >
> > For example, SerializationTest is a base for all the tests that check
> > serialization compatibility, and if we remove it because we do not
> > think about serialization right now we will lose that compatibility.
> >
> > The same for performance, it is of importance still. Existing test suit=
e
> > allows us seeking performance regressions. Otherwise we will have
> > to keep in sync two parallel test suites - one PerformanceTest based
> > just for testing the performance and another one - for unit testing.
> >
> > So, what is the noise? GUI is thinking that those base classes are
> > tests?
> > Maybe it makes sense to rename PerformanceTest to e.g. PerformanceTost
> > and GUI will be happy?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail Loenko
> > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: George Harley1 [mailto:GHARLEY@uk.ibm.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:24 PM
> > >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >Subject: RE: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
> > >
> > >Hi Mikhail,
> > >
> > >Thanks for your very complete answer.
> > >
> > >> At some point we had different functionality in the
> > >> PerformanceTest but it seems to have died now. That is basically it.
> > >
> > >Do you see this class (and its SecurityTest and SerializationTest
> > >subclasses) as candidates for removal then ? When I run the security
> > unit
> > >tests inside my IDE they add some extra lines to the console output
> > but,
> > >since I am not thinking about performance right now, that is just
> > >"background noise".
> > >
> > >Perhaps additional performance-related functionality would be better
> > moved
> > >out of the test class' hierarchy and into some decorator class ? That
> > way
> > >would give developers a bit more flexibility running the tests with or
> > >without the intervention of the performance measurement code. Sound
> > >reasonable ?
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >George
> > >________________________________________
> > >George C. Harley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"Loenko, Mikhail Y" <mikhail.y.loenko@intel.com>
> > >13/01/2006 12:12
> > >Please respond to
> > >harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >To
> > ><harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > >cc
> > >
> > >Subject
> > >RE: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >As far as we did not have special performance tests, we used unit test=
s
> > >to measure performance, i.e. to compare performance of our classes to
> > >performance of "standard" classes. So we ran in cycle a single unit
> > test
> > >on both when there are our security classes in bootclasspath and when
> > >there are not. And compared time. (Of course, not all the tests passed
> > >on "RI")
> > >
> > >Some unit tests print various logs that make execution time volatile.
> > To
> > >make it more stable we used log() instead of System.out.print() and in
> > >the "performance mode" did not print anything. log() is defined in the
> > >PerformanceTest. At some point we had different functionality in the
> > >PerformanceTest but it seems to have died now. That is basically it.
> > >
> > >The results helped us to find a number of performance leaks and improv=
e
> > >overall quality of the code.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Mikhail Loenko
> > >Intel Middleware Products Division
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: George Harley1 [mailto:GHARLEY@uk.ibm.com]
> > >>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:05 PM
> > >>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>Subject: Unit test code in HARMONY-16
> > >>
> > >>Hi,
> > >>
> > >>I have been looking into running the JUnit tests included in
> > HARMONY-16
> > >in
> > >>my private sandbox. From what I have seen so far most (all ?) of the
> > >test
> > >>cases inherit from a base class PerformanceTest in the
> > >>com.openintel.drl.security.test package. What is the purpose of this
> > >base
> > >>class ?
> > >>
> > >>Best regards,
> > >>George
> > >>________________________________________
> > >>George C. Harley
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>