harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Blewitt" <alex.blew...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: [classlib] Testing conventions - a proposal
Date Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:32:58 GMT
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Harley wrote:
> > 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.
> Will try to study TestNG before I can give comment ;-)

I'd strongly recommend TestNG for this purpose, too. It's possible to
have a limiteless set of annotations for TestNG as well as allowing
different (sub)sets of those tests to be run. You can also set up
dependencies between stages (e.g. to test sockets, you've got to test
the IO ones first) as well as allowing re-running of just failed tests
from the command line (a test run can output markers as to which tests
passed/failed, and then on subsequent runs just re-run the failing

It would also solve a lot of the problems that we've been seeing for
OS-specific issues; you can mark a test only to be run on Windows, or
on Linux etc.

the best thing is that all of these annotations can be combined in
whatever ways that you want -- as opposed to a directory-based
approach, which is hierarchical and thus not easy to split based on OS
or enviornment alone without an exponetial explosion in the possible


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

View raw message