harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [testing] metadata approach
Date Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:17:21 GMT
> > We now have this, so let the TestNG debate continue :)
> Unfortunately, we still need java.util.concurrent :-(

Yeah, TestNG 5.0 still throws java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError :
java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue on Harmony+j9v4.

I've also got an error while trying to compile TestNG 5.0 tests with
Harmony+j9v4+ecj: The method getId() is undefined for the type Thread

> > - If we go ahead with TestNG, we need to select a set of group names
> > to use to indicate exclusion, platform specificness etc.

Don't you like the names suggested by George?

> > - Decide whether some physical separation of tests on disk is necessary,  for instance
to separate classpath and bootclasspath tests

IMHO it is ok to separate classpath and bootclasspath tests because it
will be easer to implement such solution technically.

Regards,

2006/8/10, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Oliver Deakin wrote:
> > Richard Liang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> >>> Hi Richard,
> >>>
> >>>> Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG
> >>>> javadoc
> >>>> -> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
> >>>
> >>> Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
> >>> the support for anotations? If the answer is about a couple of weeks -
> >>> no problem, we can wait. But if this is several months...
> >>> About the "migration" - I don't think this will be a real painfull
> >>> migration, all infrastructure will remain the same. We will only need
> >>> to convert javadocs to annotations (one-one correspondence) and this
> >>> task can be easily automated.
> >> Sounds reasonable. :-)  Maybe drlvm guys or Oliver could tell us when
> >> we will have a VM with annotation support?
> >
> > We now have this, so let the TestNG debate continue :)
> >
>
> Unfortunately, we still need java.util.concurrent :-(
>
>
> > I guess we need to decide a few things before we go ahead with this:
> > - Whether TestNG is generally accepted by the Harmony community
> > as our test harness of choice for unit testing. I think this will
> > probably
> > require a vote of some kind before we could make the move.
> > - If we go ahead with TestNG, we need to select a set of group names
> > to use
> > to indicate exclusion, platform specificness etc.
> > - Decide whether some physical separation of tests on disk is necessary,
> > for instance to separate classpath and bootclasspath tests.
> >
> > Comments/additions?
>
> Agree.  And we could provide proposals for these questions case by case,
> and let community make decision.
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oliver
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> 2006/8/1, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> >>>> > Hi,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I have created this new thread as a single place for discussions
> >>>> > started in "Re: [testing] Peace" and "[classlib] Testing
> >>>> conventions –
> >>>> > a proposal" threads.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > What did we have in the previous threads?
> >>>> > * Test classification proposed by Vladimir
> >>>> > * Test classification and group names proposed by George
> >>>> > * Solution for Ant and TestNG scripting issues (still being
> >>>> discussed)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Since a lot of people are asking about TestNG and wanting TestNG
I
> >>>> > decide to put some effort and take a closer look at this piece
of
> >>>> > software. Thus during the last few days I was playing with TestNG
> >>>> - I
> >>>> > tried to run different kind of tests with it, to perform various
> >>>> > workloads, generate reports in different ways and etc. The
> >>>> purpose of
> >>>> > all this activity was to try TestNG in a real work, understand
is
> >>>> > TestNG really worth our credits and how expensive can be moving
to
> >>>> > TestNG from our currently implemented testing infrastructure. Now
I
> >>>> > have some thoughts and facts I'd like to share with the community.
> >>>> > I've put it in the form of list for convenience.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > * TestNG works ok in normal conditions, no visible bugs
> >>>> > * It is possible to define and use various (possibly intersecting)
> >>>> > test groups with TestNG
> >>>> > * TestNG-style metadata is more convenient than JUnit test suites
> >>>> (now
> >>>> > I agree with this statement). IMHO this is the main TestNG benefit.
> >>>> > * It is possible to run TestNG from command line
> >>>> > * There is also the special ant task for running TestNG
> >>>> > * Not everything can be configured with the ant task or command-line
> >>>> > params, sometimes extra test suite definition file "testng.xml"
is
> >>>> > needed
> >>>> > * It is possible to run jUnit tests with TestNG ("testng.xml" is
> >>>> > needed in this case)
> >>>> > * It is possible to run junit tests we currently have in Harmony
> >>>> with
> >>>> > TestNG without any problems and modifications of the source code.
> >>>> > However, we probably should write some number of TestNG test suite
> >>>> > definition files "testng.xml" to be able to run all our junit
> >>>> tests (I
> >>>> > have tried tests for bean module and some tests for luni)
> >>>> > * We can mix jUnit tests and TestNG tests in the single test suite
> >>>> > configuration – i.e. single testng.xml file. We can add TestNG
> >>>> > metadata to some test classes and leave other test classes untouched
> >>>> > * TestNG generates HTML reports in its own style, not a very
> >>>> > convenient one IMHO
> >>>> > * It is also possible to generate JUnitReports from the output
> >>>> > generated by TestNG
> >>>> > * Such reports will have a little bit different structure since
> >>>> TestNG
> >>>> > doesn't provider any information about enclosing type for test
> >>>> > methods. Names for tests (replacement for JUnit "test classes")
and
> >>>> > test suites should be externally configured in "testng.xml"
> >>>> > * TestNG for Java 5 doesn't work on Harmony because some necessary
> >>>> > classes from java.util.concurrent package are missing and it seems
> >>>> > that jsr14 target (we are currently using) doesn't support
> >>>> annotations
> >>>> > * TestNG for Java 1.4 (javadoc version) currently works on Harmony
> >>>> > * I have half-way done script that converts TestNG 1.4 metadata
> >>>> > (javadoc) tests to TestNG 1.5 (5.0 annotations) tests.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Excellent summary! Thanks a lot
> >>>>
> >>>> > The question I'd like to raise now is – aren't we ready for TestNG
> >>>> > right now?
> >>>> I suppose we will use Java 5.0 annotations of TestNG, so it seems
> >>>> now we
> >>>> are not ready for TestNG. But we can continue our feasibility study,
> >>>> just like what you have done, to know if TestNG really meets our
> >>>> requirements or if there are any potential problems. Maybe we could
> >>>> list
> >>>> a prerequisite list. e.g,
> >>>> 1) Harmony can fully self-host TestNG with Java5 annotations
> >>>> 2) Test groups are well-defined and agreed in community
> >>>> 3) Guidelines to write TestNG testcases
> >>>> 4) Take one module to run a pilot case
> >>>> ....
> >>>>
> >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> > For example, we could replace our harness from jUnit to
> >>>> > TestNG and lazily start converting of some failing and platform
> >>>> > dependent tests to javadoc version of TestNG. The rest of the tests
> >>>> > will remain jUnit in fact. And when our VM will be ready to handle
> >>>> > annotations we can convert all our TestNG 1.4 tests to TestNG 1.5.
I
> >>>> > understand that this idea may seem to be too early. But anyway
we
> >>>> will
> >>>> > need to change things some day since many people are unhappy with
> >>>> the
> >>>> > current testing infrastructure (me for example).
> >>>> Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG
> >>>> javadoc
> >>>> -> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Thought? Suggestions? Opposite opinions?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > With Best Regards,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Richard Liang
> >>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM

> --
> Richard Liang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM

-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product 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


Mime
View raw message