harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From George Harley <george.c.har...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Testing conventions - a proposal
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:41:52 GMT
Hi Alexei,

It's encouraging to hear that (Ant + TestNG + sample tests) all worked 
fine together on Harmony. In answer to your question I suppose that the 
ability to fork the tests in a separate VM means that we do not run the 
risk of possible bugs in Harmony affecting the test harness and 
therefore the outcome of the tests.

Best regards,
George


Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> Probably my previous message was not clear enough.
> Why can't we just invoke everything including ant on top of Harmony
> for now? At least I was able to build and run test-14 examples from
> TestNG 4.7 distribution solely on top of j9 + our classlib today.
>
> C:\Java\testng-4.7\test-14>set 
> JAVA_HOME=c:\Java\harmony\enhanced\classlib\trunk
> \deploy\jdk\jre
>
> C:\Java\testng-4.7\test-14>ant 
> -Dbuild.compiler=org.eclipse.jdt.core.JDTCompiler
> Adapter run
> Buildfile: build.xml
>
> prepare:
>
> compile:
>     [echo]                                  -- Compiling JDK 1.4 tests --
>
> run:
>     [echo]                                  -- Running JDK 1.4 tests   --
>     [echo]                                  -- testng-4.7-jdk14.jar  --
>
> [testng-14] ===============================================
> [testng-14] TestNG JDK 1.4
> [testng-14] Total tests run: 179, Failures: 10, Skips: 0
> [testng-14] ===============================================
> ...
>
> Exactly the same results as with Sun JDK 1.4.
> Note: you may need to hatch the build.xml a little bit to achieve this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2006/7/19, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Actually the Ant task always runs the tests in a forked VM. At present,
>> however, the task does not support specifying the forked VM (i.e. there
>> is no equivalent to the JUnit Ant task's "jvm" attribute). This matter
>> has already been raised with the TestNG folks who seem happy to
>> introduce this.
>>
>> In the meantime we could run the tests using the Ant java task.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Liang wrote:
>> > According to "TestNG Ant Task" [1], it seems that the TestNG Ant task
>> > does not support to fork a new JVM, that is, we must launch ant using
>> > Harmony itself. Any comments? Thanks a lot.
>> >
>> > [1]http://testng.org/doc/ant.html
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Richard
>> >
>> > George Harley wrote:
>> >> Andrew Zhang wrote:
>> >>> On 7/18/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>> >>>> > George Harley wrote:
>> >>>> >> <SNIP!>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its
test
>> >>>> methods.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could
define
>> >>>> for use
>> >>>> >> inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> * type.impl  --  tests that are specific to Harmony
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > So tests are implicitly API unless specified otherwise?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I'm slightly confused by your definition of impl tests as "tests
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> > specific to Harmony". Does this mean that impl tests are only
>> >>>> > those that test classes in org.apache.harmony packages?
>> >>>> > I thought that impl was our way of saying "tests that need
to 
>> go on
>> >>>> > the bootclasspath".
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I think I just need a little clarification...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Oliver,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was using the definition of implementation-specific tests that
we
>> >>>> currently have on the Harmony testing conventions web page. That

>> is,
>> >>>> implementation-specific tests are those that are dependent on some
>> >>>> aspect of the Harmony implementation and would therefore not 
>> pass when
>> >>>> run against the RI or other conforming implementations. It's
>> >>>> orthogonal
>> >>>> to the classpath/bootclasspath issue.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> * state.broken.<platform id>  --  tests bust on a
specific 
>> platform
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> * state.broken  --  tests broken on every platform but
we 
>> want to
>> >>>> >> decide whether or not to run from our suite configuration
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> * os.<platform id>  --  tests that are to be run
only on the
>> >>>> >> specified platform (a test could be member of more than
one of
>> >>>> these)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > And the defaults for these are an unbroken state and runs on
any
>> >>>> > platform.
>> >>>> > That makes sense...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Will the platform ids be organised in a similar way to the
>> >>>> platform ids
>> >>>> > we've discussed before for organisation of native code [1]?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The actual string used to identify a particular platform can be
>> >>>> whatever
>> >>>> we want it to be, just so long as we are consistent. So, yes, 
>> the ids
>> >>>> mentioned in the referenced email would seem a good starting 
>> point. Do
>> >>>> we need to include a 32-bit/64-bit identifier ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > So all tests are, by default, in an all-platforms (or shared)

>> group.
>> >>>> > If a test fails on all Windows platforms, it is marked with
>> >>>> > state.broken.windows.
>> >>>> > If a test fails on Windows but only on, say, amd hardware,
>> >>>> > it is marked state.broken.windows.amd.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes. Agreed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Then when you come to run tests on your windows amd machine,
>> >>>> > you want to include all tests in the all-platform (shared)
group,
>> >>>> > os.windows and os.windows.amd, and exclude all tests in
>> >>>> > the state.broken, state.broken.windows and 
>> state.broken.windows.amd
>> >>>> > groups.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Does this tally with what you were thinking?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, that is the idea.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> What does everyone else think ? Does such a scheme sound
>> >>>> reasonable ?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I think so - it seems to cover our current requirements. 
>> Thanks for
>> >>>> > coming up with this!
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be 
>> great to
>> >>>> prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing
>> >>>> modules,
>> >>>> ideally something that contains tests that are platform-specific.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello George, how about doing a trial on NIO module?
>> >>>
>> >>> So far as I know, there are several platform dependent tests in NIO
>> >>> module.
>> >>> :)
>> >>>
>> >>> The assert statements are commented out in these tests, with "FIXME"
>> >>> mark.
>> >>>
>> >>> Furthurmore, I also find some platform dependent behaviours of
>> >>> FileChannel.
>> >>> If TestNG is applied on NIO, I will supplement new tests for
>> >>> FileChannel and
>> >>> fix the bug of source code.
>> >>>
>> >>> What's your opnion? Any suggestions/comments?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> That sounds like a very good idea. If there is agreement in the
>> >> project that 5.0 annotations are the way to go (as opposed to the
>> >> pre-5.0 Javadoc comment support offered by TestNG) then to the best
>> >> of my knowledge all that is stopping us from doing this trial is the
>> >> lack of a 5.0 VM to run the Harmony tests on. Hopefully that will be
>> >> addressed soon. When it is I would be happy to get stuck into this
>> >> trial.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> George
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>>> George
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Regards,
>> >>>> > Oliver
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > [1]
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> 
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200605.mbox/%3c44687AAA.5080302@googlemail.com%3e

>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Thanks for reading this far.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Best regards,
>> >>>> >> George
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> George Harley wrote:
>> >>>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it
really
>> >>>> caught my
>> >>>> >>> attention as I have been mulling over this issue for
a little
>> >>>> while
>> >>>> >>> now. I think that it is a good time for us to return
to the
>> >>>> topic of
>> >>>> >>> class library test layouts.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> The current proposal [1] sets out to segment our different
>> >>>> types of
>> >>>> >>> test by placing them in different file locations. After

>> looking at
>> >>>> >>> the recent changes to the LUNI module tests (where
the layout
>> >>>> >>> guidelines were applied) I have a real concern that
there are
>> >>>> >>> serious problems with this approach. We have started
down a
>> >>>> track of
>> >>>> >>> just continually growing the number of test source
folders 
>> as new
>> >>>> >>> categories of test are identified and IMHO that is
going to 
>> bring
>> >>>> >>> complexity and maintenance issues with these tests.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Consider the dimensions of tests that we have ...
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> API
>> >>>> >>> Harmony-specific
>> >>>> >>> Platform-specific
>> >>>> >>> Run on classpath
>> >>>> >>> Run on bootclasspath
>> >>>> >>> Behaves different between Harmony and RI
>> >>>> >>> Stress
>> >>>> >>> ...and so on...
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> If you weigh up all of the different possible permutations
and
>> >>>> then
>> >>>> >>> consider that the above list is highly likely to be
extended as
>> >>>> >>> things progress it is obvious that we are eventually
heading 
>> for
>> >>>> >>> large amounts of related test code scattered or possibly
>> >>>> duplicated
>> >>>> >>> across numerous "hard wired" source directories. How
>> >>>> maintainable is
>> >>>> >>> that going to be ?
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> If we want to run different tests in different 
>> configurations then
>> >>>> >>> IMHO we need to be thinking a whole lot smarter. We
need to be
>> >>>> >>> thinking about keeping tests for specific areas of

>> functionality
>> >>>> >>> together (thus easing maintenance); we need something
quick and
>> >>>> >>> simple to re-configure if necessary (pushing whole

>> directories of
>> >>>> >>> files around the place does not seem a particularly
lightweight
>> >>>> >>> approach); and something that is not going to potentially

>> mess up
>> >>>> >>> contributed patches when the file they patch is found
to 
>> have been
>> >>>> >>> recently pushed from source folder A to B.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> To connect into another recent thread, there have been
some 
>> posts
>> >>>> >>> lately about handling some test methods that fail on
Harmony 
>> and
>> >>>> >>> have meant that entire test case classes have been
excluded
>> >>>> from our
>> >>>> >>> test runs. I have also been noticing some API test
methods that
>> >>>> pass
>> >>>> >>> fine on Harmony but fail when run against the RI. Are
the
>> >>>> different
>> >>>> >>> behaviours down to errors in the Harmony implementation
? An 
>> error
>> >>>> >>> in the RI implementation ? A bug in the RI Javadoc
? Only after
>> >>>> some
>> >>>> >>> investigation has been carried out do we know for sure.
That 
>> takes
>> >>>> >>> time. What do we do with the test methods in the meantime
? 
>> Do we
>> >>>> >>> push them round the file system into yet another new
source
>> >>>> folder ?
>> >>>> >>> IMHO we need a testing strategy that enables such "problem"
>> >>>> methods
>> >>>> >>> to be tracked easily without disruption to the rest
of the 
>> other
>> >>>> tests.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the TestNG framework
[2]
>> >>>> >>> seemed like a reasonably good way of allowing us to
both group
>> >>>> >>> together different kinds of tests and permit the exclusion
of
>> >>>> >>> individual tests/groups of tests [3]. I would like
to strongly
>> >>>> >>> propose that we consider using TestNG as a means of

>> providing the
>> >>>> >>> different test configurations required by Harmony.
Using a
>> >>>> >>> combination of annotations and XML to capture the kinds
of
>> >>>> >>> sophisticated test configurations that people need,
and that
>> >>>> allows
>> >>>> >>> us to specify down to the individual method, has got
to be more
>> >>>> >>> scalable and flexible than where we are headed now.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Thanks for reading this far.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>>> >>> George
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> [1]
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> 
>> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html 
>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> [2] http://testng.org
>> >>>> >>> [3]
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> 
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200606.mbox/%3c44A163B3.6080005@googlemail.com%3e

>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


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