harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] jetty based tests
Date Tue, 23 May 2006 06:36:34 GMT
Hi, Stepan,

"With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
demonstrates the possible way."

Shall we write a mock http server for each case?  It takes lots of
reduplicate efforts and results in many mock http server classes in the end.

In fact, for many regular tests, jetty works fine.

And I also agree that for negative tests and some other special tests which
jetty could not satisfy ,  we should use mock http server instead.

What's your opnion?

Thanks.


On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi George, Tim
>
> I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> 1) Configuring
> As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we can
> start/stop
> it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all we need to
> do
> is just download required jars. Right?
>
> What about Eclipse users?
>
> 2) Time to run test suite
> May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test suite run slow
> down
> if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
>
> 3) Testing
> Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to force a server
> to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so in this case
> the server and client have an understanding that when the client asks for
> a
> particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
>
> With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
> demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create negative tests,
> for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty server be
> used for negative testing?
>
> See other comments below
>
> On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
> >
> > Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > >> <snip>
> > >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty from common test suite
> > >> run.
> > >>
> > >> Why?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal' test suite run (
> I
> > > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony test suite I
> > > have to
> > > configure and run 20 different external servers even they are easy
> > > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use mock objects - so
> > > let's
> > > use them! For example, in this case there is no need in jetty server.
> > >
> > > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate such
> > > tests.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stepan.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Stepan,
> >
> > Just seen this note and think that my previous append on the "Re: svn
> > commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to quote myself:
> >
> > <paste>
> > Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server stubs. It is
> > fast, it is lightweight,
>
>
> Fast and lightweight as what?
> I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
> jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
>
>
> > it can be started and stopped very simply from
> > within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a specified batch
> > of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from Java test code
> > so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case from within
> > that test case.
>
>
> Good.
>
> It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
> > a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its runtime
> > behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
>
>
> What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty server to send
> it
> a chunked response?
>
> I don't really understand why such network tests making use of a small,
> > embedded server running locally would need to be considered as outside
> > of the "normal test flow".
> > </paste>
>
>
> Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding other
> dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal test flow"
> should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each additional
> dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light) to
> developer's
> large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow and hard to
> configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty server
> inside it.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> We are not talking about an external server here and we are not talking
> > about developers having to carry out complex configuration manoeuvres
> > when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants. The
> > motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests out of the
> > "excludes" sin bin.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> 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
>
>


-- 
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message