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] TestNG v. JUnit
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:29:24 GMT
Whoa, good summaries!

On 7/11/06, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > Not to add another fire to this topic, but with all things being
> relative,
> > so far this topic has been comparison of the TestNG and JUnit v3.8. From
> > what I understand, the latest JUnit v4.1 provides many of the same
> > annotation features that TestNG does, as well guaranteed compatibility
> with
> > JUnit v3-based tests.
> >
> > If we were to compare moving to TestNG with upgrading to JUnit 4.1,
> would
> > there still be as much value in the proposition to move to TestNG?
> >
> >
> It's hard to give an exhaustive comparison of JUnit4 and TestNG. There
> is an existing presentation "Comparison TestNG / JUnit 4"[1], however,
> it's in German. Not sure if there are German here. ;-)
>
> I just try to list some items (Correct me if I'm wrong)
>
> Both JUit4 and TestNG:
> 1)  Test classes do not have to extend from junit.framework.TestCase.
> 2) Test methods do not have to be prefixed with 'test'.
> 3) Use @Test annotations to mark a method as a test case.
> 4) Use @Before and @After annotations to identify set up and tear down.
> (TestNG uses @Configuration.beforeTestMethod and
> @Configuration.afterTestMethod )
> 5) Use @BeforeClass and @AfterClass annotations to identify one time set
> up and one time tear down. (TestNG uses @Configuration.beforeTestClass
> and @Configuration.afterTestClass )
> 6) @Test.timeout to specify the maximum time to execute
> 7) @Test.expected to specify the expected exception to be thrown (TestNG
> uses @ExpectedExceptions)
> 8) Can execute Junit 3.8 test cases.
>
> *Differences*:
> 1) JUnit4 requires Java 5.0. while TestNG can work with Java 1.4 and
> Java 5.0
> 2) TestNG provides more annotations to facilitate testing configuration[2]
> 3) TestNG "groups" is more sophisticated than JUnit test suite[3]


It's a key difference. At least, TestNG "groups" concept solves our
platform-dependent & exclude-list problems.
i.e "win","linux","broken" could easy tell TestNG which tests should be run
or excluded on windows or linux.


4) TestNG make it easy to rerun failed tests[4]
> ....
>
> 1. http://www.qaware.de/downloads/to1-adersberger.pdf
> 2. http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#annotations
> 3. http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#test-groups
> 4. http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#rerunning
>
> Best regards,
> Richard.
>
> > -Nathan
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: George Harley [mailto:george.c.harley@googlemail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:57 PM
> >> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [classlib] Testing conventions - a proposal
> >>
> >> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi George,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find
> out
> >>>> why you refer to TestNG as being an "unstable" test harness. What is
> >>>> that statement based on ?
> >>>>
> >>> My exact statement was referring to TestNG as "probably unstable"
> >>> rather than simply "unstable". ;)  This statement was based on posts
> >>> from Richard Liang about the bug in the TestNG migration tool and on
> >>> common sense. If the project has such an obvious bug in one place it
> >>> may probably have other bugs in other places. JUnit is quite famous
> >>> and widely used toolkit that proved to be stable enough. TestNG is
> >>> neither famous nor widely used. And IMHO it makes sense to be careful
> >>> with new exciting tools until we *really* need their innovative
> >>> functionality.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hi Alexei,
> >>
> >> Last I heard, Richard posted saying that there was no bug in the
> >> migration tool [1]. The command line tool is designed to locate JUnit
> >> tests under a specified location and add the TestNG annotations to
> them.
> >> That's what it does.
> >>
> >> You are right to say that it makes sense to be careful in this matter.
> >> Nobody wants to do anything that affects Harmony in an adverse way.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> George
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-
> >> dev/200607.mbox/%3c44B1C084.3020408@gmail.com%3e
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 2006/7/10, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers
(=
> >>>>>> annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure
is
> >>>>>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>>>> tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the
sets
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like to pay your attention on
the
> >>>>> fact what it is possible to achieve the same level of test
> >>>>> grouping/slicing with JUnit TestSuites. You may define any number
of
> >>>>> intersecting suites - XXXAPIFailingSuite, XXXHYSpecificSuite,
> >>>>> XXXWinSpecificSuite or whatever. Without necessity of migrating
to
> >>>>>
> >> new
> >>
> >>>>> (probably unstable) test harness.
> >>>>> Just my two cents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hi Alexei,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are quite correct that JUnit test suites are another alternative
> >>>> here. If I recall correctly, their use was discussed in the very
> early
> >>>> days of this project but it came to nothing and we instead went down
> >>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>> route of using exclusion filters in the Ant JUnit task. That approach
> >>>> does not offer much in the way of fine grain control and relies on us
> >>>> pushing stuff around the repository. Hence the kicking off of this
> >>>> thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find
> out
> >>>> why you refer to TestNG as being an "unstable" test harness. What is
> >>>> that statement based on ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2006/7/8, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 08/07/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So while I like the annotations, and expect we can use them
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> effectively,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have an instinctive skepticism of annotations right now
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> because in
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> general (in general in Java), I'm not convinced we've used
them
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> enough
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> to grok good design patterns.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's really no reason to get hung up on the annotations.
TestNG
> >>>>>> works just as well with JavaDoc source comments; annotations
are
> >>>>>>
> >> only
> >>
> >>>>>> another means to that end. (They're probably a better one for
the
> >>>>>> future, but it's just an implementation detail.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now since I still haven't read the thread fully, I'm jumping
to
> >>>>>>> conclusions, taking it to the extreme, etc etc, but my thinking
in
> >>>>>>> writing the above is that if we bury everything about our
test
> >>>>>>> 'parameter space' in annotations, some of the visible
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> organization we
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> have now w/ on-disk layout becomes invisible, and the readable
> >>>>>>> "summaries" of aspects of testing that we'd have in an XML
> >>>>>>>
> >> metadata
> >>
> >>>>>>> document (or whatever) also are hard because you need to
scan the
> >>>>>>> sources to find all instances of annotation "X".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm hoping that this would be just as applicable to using JavaDoc
> >>>>>> variants, and that the problem's not with annotations per se.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In either case, both are grokkable with tools -- either
> >>>>>> annotation-savy readers or a JavaDoc tag processor, and it
> >>>>>>
> >>>> wouldn't be
> >>>>
> >>>>>> hard to configure one of those to periodically scan the codebase
to
> >>>>>> generate reports. Furthermore, as long as the annotation X is
well
> >>>>>> defined, *you* don't have to scan it -- you leave it up to TestNG
> to
> >>>>>> figure it out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers
(=
> >>>>>> annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure
is
> >>>>>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>>>> tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the
sets
> >>>>>> don't need to be strict subsets (with a tree, everything has
to be
> a
> >>>>>> strict subset of its parents). That means that it's possible
to
> >>>>>>
> >>>> define
> >>>>
> >>>>>> a marker IO to run all the IO tests, or a marker Win32 to run
all
> >>>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>>> Win32 tests, and both of those will contain IO-specific Win32
> tests.
> >>>>>> You can't do that in a tree structure without duplicating content
> >>>>>> somewhere along the line (e.g. /win/io or /io/win). Neither
of
> these
> >>>>>> scale well, and every time you add a new dimension, you're doubling
> >>>>>> the structure of the directory, but merely adding a new marker
with
> >>>>>> TestNG. So if you wanted to have (say) boot classpath tests
vs api
> >>>>>> tests, then you'd ahve to have /api/win/io and /boot/win/io
(or
> >>>>>> various permutations as applicable).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most of the directory-based arguments seem to be along the lines
of
> >>>>>> "/api/win/io is better! No, /win/io/api is better!". Just have
an
> >>>>>> 'api', 'win', 'io' TestNG marker, and then let TestNG figure
out
> >>>>>>
> >>>> which
> >>>>
> >>>>>> ones to run. You can then even get specific, and only run the
> >>>>>>
> >> Windows
> >>
> >>>>>> IO API tests, if you really want -- but if you don't, you get
the
> >>>>>> benefit of being able to run all IO tests (both API and boot).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There doesn't seem to be any benefit to having a strict tree-like
> >>>>>> structure to the tests when it's possible to have a multi-
> >>>>>>
> >> dimensional
> >>
> >>>>>> matrix of all possible combinations that's managed by the tool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alex.
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
>


-- 
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

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