harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Tests for serialization – which package, name?
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:46:07 GMT
I meant that environment could be created, stored, and later
reused by other test methods.

Thanks,
Mikhail

2006/4/28, Anton Avtamonov <anton.avtamonov@gmail.com>:
> 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
>
>

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