harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Testing
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:41:29 GMT


George Harley wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>> George Harley wrote:
>> >>
>>>> Of course, the text module has only "implementation-independent 
>>>> tests that designed to be run from classpath". For modules that have 
>>>> got implementation-specific tests then I suppose we could use 
>>>> something like "org.apache.harmony.[module].tests.impl.[package 
>>>> under test]" or "org.apache.harmony.[module].tests.internal.[package 
>>>> under test]" etc. I've got no preference.
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Put them in the same package as the class being tested, please, if 
>>> there is no problem being run that way.
>>
>> Sorry to be so snippy.  Been a long day.
> 
> Sure. No worries.
> 
>>
>> Why would we want this convoluted package name?  Why wouldn't we want 
>> to let them be in the same package as the class being tested since 
>> it's implementation testing?
> 
> OK, point taken about the long package names that may result for tests 
> of org.apache.harmony.* stuff. If the class under test is an internal 
> type (i.e. in the org.apache.harmony.* package space) then I am sure we 
> can all agree on a sensible abbreviation so that the org.apache.harmony 
> part does not appear twice. So, for instance, if we are testing public 
> methods on org.apache.harmony.security.foo.bar.MyType from the classpath 
> then we could have the test package be 
> org.apache.harmony.security.tests.foo.bar.
> 
> I am concerned that we are all agree on what we mean by 
> "implementation"-specific testing and "internal"-specific testing. I 
> know it has been confusing me a lot.

Yah - we should probably bottom out there...

> 
> If we want to run API tests that are specific to our implementation then 
> there is no need to have the test types in the same package name as the 
> class under test and no need for those tests to be on the bootclasspath. 
> Orthogonal to that are tests that are actually testing the internals of 
> a type - these are what I take to be candidates for being in the same 
> package and on the bootclasspath at test time.

So your suggestion is?  I agree with you, but when reading the above, I 
was expecting some kind of "therefore, I think we should...".  it could 
just be that I have no coffee this a.m.

geir

> 
> Best regards,
> George
> 
>>
>> geir
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message