harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:50:23 GMT
2006/9/4, Richard Liang <richard.liangyx@gmail.com>:
> Alex Blewitt wrote:
> > IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based
> > on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression
> > test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at
> > agreeing on the difference between them :-)
> This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine.
> We are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to
> write unit tests.
> >
> > 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.

I believe we have not. If a testcase was added to prevent regression,
it basically means that there was a hole in test coverage for some
reason. Provided that such "holes" are scattered randomly through the
given module, what for we may want to run such a sieve test suite?
I can think of the sole reason, that regression tests may
*potentially* highlight weak spots in the code (or design) which are
more prone to fail during code evolution. But still I see no reason to
run only regression tests ignoring others. I'd rather second Alex in
fast/slow grouping orthogonal to regressions.

As for information purposes, Mikhail (?) suggested good idea -
explicitly specify no. of the issue in descripton comment (or



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