harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Liang <richard.lian...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [result] Re: [vote] Acceptance of HARMONY-39 : Contribution of beans, regex and math class library code
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:42:10 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Good unit tests are going to be testing things that are package 
> protected.  You can't do that if you aren't in the same package 
> (obviously).  With the "custom" of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we 
> implicitly discouraging good testing practice?  Given that this 
> o.a.h.t.* pattern comes from Eclipse-land, how do they do it?  I 
> couldn't imagine that the Eclipse tests don't test package protected 
> things.
>
Hello Geir,

Maybe we should have two types of test suites:
1. Test for APIs including public and protected methods which could be 
run against different Java SE implementations.
==>> If we want to test a protected method of a class, we could mock a 
subclass of this class. And write test case against the subclass. 
(Protected methods are accessible to subclass)

2. Test for internal implementation which may include tests for package 
private methods and tests for other internal-used classes.
==>>We must put the tests into the same package if we want to test 
package private methods of a class.

These are just some rough thinking ;-) Any comments? Thanks a lot.
> I've been short of Round Tuits lately, but I still would like to 
> investigate a test harness that helps us by mitigating the security 
> issues...
>
> geir
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
>> I thought the crucial thing was that tests should be in a separate
>> namespace not in the namespace of the package they are testing (at
>> least not unless it was absolutely necessary).
>> -Mark.
>>
>> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> I'm doing it now.
>>>
>>> I need to go back and stare at our discussion on test setup, because 
>>> I'm
>>>   still not a raving fan of o.a.h.test....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>>> Don't worry, you'd have to be less subtle for me to take something 
>>>> as criticism.
>>>>
>>>> I've had an attempt at moving beans out - HARMONY-218.  If that gets
>>>> committed I'll do the other too.
>>>>
>>>> -Mark.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> That wasn't a criticism, btw.  It seemed like a natural thing to 
>>>>> do when
>>>>> I first saw it, but when I was actually dealing w/ it, my opinion 
>>>>> changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yah, split away!  That was going to be my next question, how to 
>>>>> split..
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>>>>> Fair enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mind if I redo the script/patch to split the three modules to match
>>>>>> the structure of the others?  That is, into separate modules/math,
>>>>>> modules/beans, modules/regex directories?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>  Mark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I just committed.  There was some delay because of a missing

>>>>>>> CCLA.  Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've committed the code as is from the JIRA.  I'm going to do

>>>>>>> some basic
>>>>>>> cleanup and then look at hte patches to integrate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at this (and 88?) I think that this "add patches" 
>>>>>>> approach is a
>>>>>>> bad one, because it complicates what this JIRA is now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the future, I think we should just create new JIRA's for 
>>>>>>> add-ons (if
>>>>>>> the add-on contributor isn't the contributor of the original

>>>>>>> JIRA) and
>>>>>>> just link them so they are easy to keep track of...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Despite a touch of trouble with the packaging of the

>>>>>>>>> contribution, it
>>>>>>>>> passed with flying colors ( or 'colours', for our UK
friends...)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 from :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Geir
>>>>>>>>> Stefano
>>>>>>>>> Dims
>>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In it comes....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have received the ACQs and the BCC for Harmony-39,
so I can 
>>>>>>>>>> assert
>>>>>>>>>> that the critical provenance paperwork is in order
(although 
>>>>>>>>>> not in
>>>>>>>>>> SVN yet).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into
the Apache 
>>>>>>>>>> Harmony
>>>>>>>>>> class library :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] + 1 Accept
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Reject  (provide reason below
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone states
they need 
>>>>>>>>>> more time
>>>>>>>>>> or b) we get all committer votes before then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Geir,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As this contribution has been accepted for a long time, I'm

>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>> when the source code could be put into Harmony SVN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm working on the implementation of java.text.DecimalFormat

>>>>>>>> which has
>>>>>>>> enhancements on BigDecimal and BigInteger support. Now I
just 
>>>>>>>> use this
>>>>>>>> contribution as external jars in Eclipse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
>>>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>
>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM



Mime
View raw message