harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Avtamonov" <anton.avtamo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Tests for serialization – which package, name?
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:50:52 GMT
On 4/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/4/28, Anton Avtamonov <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com>:
> > On 4/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2006/4/27, Anton Avtamonov <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com>:
> > > > On 4/27/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I say leave them mixed.  We are no more likely to want to run
> > > > > serialization tests separately than we are locking tests etc. and
trying
> > > > > to layout the tests on disk to represent all the different metadata
> > > > > about each test case is not going to work.
> > > >
> > > > +1. usually we have test layout like: one class - one TestCase. I
> > >
> > > Sometimes we need different setUp and tearDown operations
> > > for different tests against the same class. This is best to be handled as
> > > multiple TestCases (or test classes in other words as TestCase can be ambiguous)
> >
> > That's true. It happens quite often and has no correlation with some
> > particular type of tests (like serialization testing). When you need
> > to cover 50 methods of some class for instance, you can hardly expect
> > that all the preparation required for one of them is really needed for
> > others. I don't think that is a good reason to create separated test
> > cases. I'd prefer to use the most essential and common instantiations
> > in setUp() and provide further customization in each particular test.
>
> Some days ago I posted statistics about ~1% of tests that run 80% of time.
> Most of these tests do exactly what you describe here - in the test
> methods they do what is supposed to be done in setUp

Sorry Mikhail. I didn't catch.
setUp() is called before each test call. Therefore setUp() which
performs some "universal" initialization definitely takes much time
than setUp() doing very essential things and allowing each test method
to perform specific settings if it is required.
Could you explain please how more time-consuming approach (IMHO) can be quicker?

--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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