Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 32.97.182.141 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of richard.liangyx@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <4427B849.9030008@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:02:49 +0800
From: Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Unit testing revisited
References: <6e47b64f0603230200l3ebdbb76p289b1011bd1e76d4@mail.gmail.com>
 <4427602A.9000408@pobox.com>
 <46d21a9a0603270014q6d100b30l1aa6b9d80556378a@mail.gmail.com>
 <200603271107.51349.chris.gray@kiffer.be>
 <20060327093121.GI11303@bali.sjc.webweaving.org> <4427B242.7030202@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4427B242.7030202@pobox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Dears,

As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create 
one with my rough ideas 
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can 
document our decision timely & clearly.

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
>> Gentlemen!
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
>>> On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>>> On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
>>> Now let me support [SNIP].
>>
>> The ASF front page says
>>
>>   (...) "The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, 
>> consensus
>>   based development process, " (...)
>>
>> That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
>>
>> "How should we organize our tests?" has now been the subject of 
>> debate for
>> *months* around here, and every now and then much of the same 
>> discussion is
>> rehashed.
>
> And we're making progress.  IMO, it really helped my thinking to 
> distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec 
> tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the 
> whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
>
> I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where 
> java.util.HashMapTest fits.
>
> I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.  
> Now, I see clearly.
>
>>
>> I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on 
>> (such as,
>> "we don't know, but we can find out", or "we have different ideas on 
>> that,
>> but there's room for both", or "this way of doing things is not the 
>> best one
>> but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work 
>> anyway")
>> than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of 
>> disagreements.
>>
>> Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that "apache projects are
>> characterized by a *productive* development process". Its just my 
>> feeling that
>> for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.
>
> You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?
>
>>
>> Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other 
>> people to do
>> their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?
>
> The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but 
> understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace both 
> approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need both 
> apples and oranges.  They aren't exclusionary.
>
> geir
>


-- 
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM