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] Layout of tests in crypto module
Date Thu, 18 May 2006 12:16:29 GMT
There are classes like X509CertImpl.java in this case impl test for it
would be X509CertImplImplTest which does not look very good.

How about ITest ?

Thanks,
Mikhail

2006/5/18, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the class
> or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
> problem. Because there will be a number of tests that must be in an
> identical package name to the type under test then it seems that the
> differentiating mark needs to be added to the test class name. Not
> really sure what this could be. Given that we are all settled on the
> convention that a test type has the "Test" suffix, how about just add
> "Impl" to that suffix for implementation tests giving us an "ImplTest"
> suffix.
> e.g.
>
> class under test : java.lang.SomeClassTest
> implementation-independent test class :
> o.a.h.module.tests.java.lang.SomeClassTest
> Harmony-specific test class : o.a.h.module.tests.java.lang.SomeClassImplTest
>
>
> My 2 Euro cents...
> George
>
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > That sounds very reasonable, but I have a problem:
> >
> > I tried to implement it and found that as far as we put all test results
> > into a single directory and generate a single report, we can't have
> > different tests with the same name.
> >
> > For example we can't have impl and api tests of
> > o.a.h.module.tests.java.lang.SomeClassTest
> > Looks like we should put some differentiating mark to a class or
> > package name.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > 2006/5/18, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> > Hi George,
> >> >
> >> > I use ant to build and run the tests, so I'm likely unaware of some
> >> > Eclipse
> >> > problems.
> >> >
> >> > If we put classpath test classes to
> >> >   impl/java and api/java
> >> > and bootclasspath ones to something like
> >> >   impl/java.injected and api/java.injected
> >> > will it solve the problem you describe?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Mikhail
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Mikhail,
> >>
> >> Yes, I think that compiling to separate bin folders would do the trick ;
> >> a bin for stuff that will go on the classpath and a bin for stuff that
> >> will be loaded on the bootclasspath. In order to reach that goal the
> >> test source itself will AFAIK need to be laid out in a similar manner.
> >> That is, the directory tree will look something like the following (may
> >> need to be viewed in wide-screen):
> >>
> >>
> >> src/test/api/java             <--- implementation-independent tests
> >> intended to be loaded by system class loader, compiled to bin
> >>
> >> src/test/api/java.injected    <--- implementation-independent tests
> >> intended to be loaded by boot class loader, compiled to bin.injected
> >>
> >> src/test/impl/java             <--- Harmony-specific tests intended to
> >> be loaded by system class loader, compiled to bin
> >>
> >> src/test/impl/java.injected    <--- Harmony-specific tests intended to
> >> be loaded by boot class loader, compiled to bin.injected
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Does that sound reasonable ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >> > 2006/5/17, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> > 2006/5/16, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> >> >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hi George, see below
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2006/5/16, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> >> >> >> >> Hi Mikhail,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal
for a
> >> test
> >> >> >> >> layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know,
but I have
> >> >> suffered
> >> >> >> >> from a number of hardware problems in the past few
weeks that
> >> >> slowed
> >> >> >> >> things down somewhat for me. Anyway, it's all great
but it
> >> would
> >> >> >> be nice
> >> >> >> >> to get answers to the following ...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 1) The section on "Location of the tests in the directory
tree"
> >> >> >> >> proposes <modulename>/src/tests/impl for Harmony
specific tests
> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> <modulename>/src/tests/api for implementation-independent
> >> tests.
> >> >> >> Where
> >> >> >> >> would tests go for Harmony API's that are not part
of the J2SE
> >> >> >> spec but
> >> >> >> >> are still accessible ? Strictly speaking they are
API as
> >> well as
> >> >> >> being
> >> >> >> >> specific to Harmony.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The main idea is to separate tests that must pass on
any
> >> conformant
> >> >> >> > implementation from the tests passing on Harmony only.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > When these are separated we can e.g. easily validate
> >> >> "implementation-
> >> >> >> > independent" tests by running them against RI. Actually
I
> >> would not
> >> >> >> > like to
> >> >> >> > start an endless "philosophical" discussion here about
what are
> >> >> >> > unit vs. api vs. whatever tests.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Me ? Start a philosophical discussion ? :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "api" is just a name (suggested by Tim) and might be
changed
> >> to any
> >> >> >> > unconfusing one.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So, back to your question, those must go to 'impl' as
far as
> >> >> they fail
> >> >> >> > on RI:
> >> >> >> > "<modulename>/src/tests/impl - Harmony specific
tests"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> What about the location of tests designed to run
on
> >> >> >> >> the classpath and tests designed to run on the bootclasspath
?
> >> >> >> That does
> >> >> >> >> not seem to be addressed in this section. When the
tests are
> >> run
> >> >> >> how are
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Directory defines the root of the test suite, then the
package
> >> >> goes,
> >> >> >> > see "Package names for different types of the tests"
section:
> >> >> >> > "If the test is designed to be run from bootclasspath
then its
> >> >> package
> >> >> >> > is the same as the package of the class under test"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is it the case that all of the classes under a particular
source
> >> >> folder
> >> >> >> (say src/tests/api/java) get compiled to one output folder
?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We have not discuss it yet. So, suggestions are welcome!  :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Mikhail
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Mikhail,
> >> >>
> >> >>  OK, great. I'm wondering about how the test classes intended to be
> >> >> loaded by the bootclasspath loader get distinguished from the classes
> >> >> that are intended to be loaded by the system loader. For the sake of
> >> >> discussion, imagine that all of the test classes under a given source
> >> >> folder (e.g. src/tests/api/java) get compiled to just one output
> >> folder
> >> >> (e.g. bin). At test runtime we only want the classes that are "in the
> >> >> same package as the class under test" to be on the bootclasspath -
> >> but
> >> >> how is this enforced ? If the tests are being run from an Ant script
> >> >> then I think that it is possible to do this using Ant's path-like
> >> >> structures where wildcards can be specified among the classpath and
> >> >> bootclasspath elements. But how can an equivalent degree of
> >> separation
> >> >> be enforced if the tests are being run from an IDE such as Eclipse
?
> >> >>
> >> >>  I am not exactly an Eclipse "power-user" so it is possible that I
am
> >> >> missing some piece of magic here but it appears to me that if I
> >> want to
> >> >> configure the classpath and bootclasspath for running a particular
> >> set
> >> >> of unit tests I can only work at the output folder level. That is,
it
> >> >> can be configured that classes under a root folder of "bin" are on
> >> the
> >> >> classpath and that classes under the root folder "bin-other" are
> >> >> similarly on the bootclasspath. But there is nothing available
> >> that only
> >> >> puts classes in package java.util.* under "bin" on the
> >> bootclasspath and
> >> >> everything else on the classpath.
> >> >>
> >> >>  All of which makes me wonder if we should aim at compiling classes
> >> >> intended for the bootclasspath to one bin and classes intended for
> >> the
> >> >> classpath to another bin. It wouldn't really make much difference
> >> to Ant
> >> >> users but as far as I can tell it would offer more flexibility to IDE
> >> >> users who would then have the potential to run the tests in a way
> >> that
> >> >> was more familiar to them (runtime configuration, green bar etc).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> George
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> the "bootclasspath" and "classpath" tests distinguished
?
> >> >> Purely on
> >> >> >> >> package name ? Did you ever see the append I wrote
to the
> >> list a
> >> >> >> couple
> >> >> >> >> of weeks ago on this topic ? [1]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, I've seen it. As you could notice we had more test
> >> categories.
> >> >> >> > They are described in the same thread. We might have
> >> >> >> > "independent" tests running from bootclasspath and "specific"
> >> ones
> >> >> >> > running from classpath.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2) Still in the "Location of the tests in the directory
tree"
> >> >> >> section,
> >> >> >> >> shouldn't the suggested source folder names include
"java" in
> >> >> there ?
> >> >> >> >> e.g. <modulename>/src/tests/java/api ? What
is wrong with the
> >> >> >> >> src/test/java (below here is Java code), src/test/resources
> >> (below
> >> >> >> here
> >> >> >> >> is non-code test artefacts) convention ? I notice
that at
> >> >> present the
> >> >> >> >> page does not include any mention of where test resources
would
> >> >> go.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, you are right. It's missing.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It was supposed to be under test "type", like:
> >> >> >> > module/src/test/api/java
> >> >> >> > module/src/test/api/resources
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 3) What does the sentence "Tests are not separated
by
> >> >> functionality
> >> >> >> >> under test, e.g. tests against clone() methods are
not
> >> >> separated from
> >> >> >> >> tests against equals() methods" actually mean ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That was to address Tim's concern:
> >> >> >> > "  > 1. Tests are separated on directory level by
'intention'
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I agree where the intention is broad (i.e. functional
tests vs.
> >> >> >> > performance tests vs. stress tests) but I'm not convinced
that
> >> >> we need
> >> >> >> > to separate to a precise 'intent', at least I've never
been in a
> >> >> >> > position where I've wished that my my serialization tests
are
> >> >> separate
> >> >> >> > from my cloning tests or whatever."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Feel free to reword if something is not clear in the
proposal
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > Mikhail
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> >> >> George
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> [1]
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200604.mbox/%3c4450A1CC.1060803@googlemail.com%3e
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Hello
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I would like to make some changes in the crypto
module:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - Separate implemetation-independent tests from
> >> implementation
> >> >> >> >> specific
> >> >> >> >> > ones.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - Fix layout according to the proposed scheme
[1]
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Please let me know if you do any changes in
that module then
> >> >> >> >> > I'll delay restruct.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >> >> > Mikhail
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > [1]
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>

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