harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Zhang" <zhanghuang...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:14:31 GMT
On 9/11/06, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test
> > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have
> > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed).
> >
> > I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about
> > "default groups" :
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/%3c44C7457B.7080107@googlemail.com%3e
> >
> > I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and
> > the build script will be simpler with "os.any". It will be nice to
> > hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments
> > that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account
> > by participants of this thread.
>
> I have not any strong objection about "os.any". And actually I had
> ever proposed to define the "default" group because we could not
> include tests with annotation @Test which belong to no groups. Now it
> isn't a problem as we already have a solution for them. To facilitate
> writing test cases, we annotate the unit tests which are designed to
> pass on all platforms (os + arch) with @Test.
>
> If we use "os.any" and "arch.any", then the default annotation would
> be @Test(groups={"os.any", "arch.any"})
>
> Could any other give more comments? Thanks a lot.


Either is ok. One is more descriptive while the other is more convenient.

If we have no problem to write test.xml with default group(@Test), then I
prefer this option a little. Thanks!

Best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com>:
> > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test
> > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have
> > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed).
> > >
> > >  thanks, Vladimir
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  OK, let's return back to the usage model.
> > > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each
> > > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all
> available
> > > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level'
> group
> > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass).
> > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we
> have
> > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase
> > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each
> such
> > > > test).
> > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent
> test).
> > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on
> the
> > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current
> exclude
> > > > list).
> > > >
> > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc)
> tests
> > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any
> groups
> > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :)
> > > >
> > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define
> *all*
> > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process.
> > > >
> > > >  thanks, Vladimir
> > > >
> > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that
> > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But
> it
> > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of
> cause.
> > > >
> > > >  On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < alex.blewitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@gmail.com >
wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group
for
> fast and
> > > > > slow
> > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests,
and
> any
> > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow
tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question
is
> > > > > whether we
> > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to
be
> > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups
> you
> > > > > > want)
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually
> exclusive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run
> > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated
> > > > > test'n'build
> > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to
> > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about
> > > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by
one
> so
> > > > > that we have sufficient preparation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]http://mail-
> archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/%3c44ABB451.30806@googlemail.com%3e
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]http://mail-
> archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/%3c7273946b0607240654i7e951260x1e803ce476821982@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > > > >
> > > > > [3]http://mail-
> archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/%3c2c9597b90607280631p2b4f6fefldaf4ff1c5cd00406@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex.
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM

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