harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:25:47 GMT

On 29 November 2006 at 20:34, "Ivan Popov" <ivan.g.popov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexei,
> 
> I agree that it is still possible to run JUnit tests from command line
> even without having main() in the code. But I think it is easier to
> run test by convenient way
> 
>   $ java -cp junit.jar TestClass
> 
> rather than in a more complex manner
> 
>   $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass
> 
> Actually, I constantly forget the right spelling of the full class
> name for TestRunner class and have to look into JUnit doc to specify
> proper name for such a command line.
>
> Also, it would be inconvenient if
> someone runs test from an IDE that does not support JUnit environment,
> but launches test as a usual Java application.
> 
> I don't insist on adding main() to each JUnit testcase, but I see no
> reason for removing this functionality from those test where it
> already exists.

Whatever we do, main() should either be in all tests or none.  Having it
in only a subset is *much* too confusing.

I don't care if we have main() in testcases or not.  (I personally will
never use it and don't find remembering[0] the junit test runner class.)

Regards,
 Mark.

[0] I remember it by writing it in a shell script because I have a 
terrible memory.

> Thanks.
> Ivan
> 
> On 11/29/06, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ivan, Stepan,
> >
> > I personally set +1 for removing main() method. Any script or command
> > line can be trivially modified to launch JUnit tests without main()
> > method: one should just add junit.textui.TestRunner class before a
> > test class name.
> >
> > $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass
> >
> > I'm writing this trivial thing here because during our work on class
> > library test enabling it was FAQ N1 for all C/C++ developers.
> >
> > Note, any JUnit test won't work without junit.jar anyway. If you have
> > junit.jar, you have a standard test runner, which is also quite
> > lightweight.
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> > Alexei
> >
> > On 11/29/06, Ivan Popov <ivan.g.popov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > -1 for removing main().
> > >
> > > I often run individual tests from command line or using scripts and
> > > it's easier to launch them as a usual Java application. Also, this
> > > facilitates creating separate bundle with test to attach to a bug
> > > report or send to other people, who can just run it from command line
> > > or use script with the all required options already specified, instead
> > > of setting IDE for this test.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Ivan
> > >
> > > On 11/29/06, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There is a large amount of inconsistency across the tests and I'd like
> > > > to lobby for cleaning them up as much as possible. I'm of the opinion
> > > > that test code should be clean, simple and transparent. Here are some
> > > > of the more noticeable items that I'd like to cleanup.
> > > >
> > > > * Empty setUp/teardown methods - There are a number of tests that
> > > > override setUp and/or teardown methods, but are either empty or just
> > > > call the super implementation.
> > > >
> > > > * Singleton suite methods - There are some tests that contain a static
> > > > "suite" method that creates a TestSuite and adds one test (the test
> > > > class it's declared in). Are there any practical uses for these
> > > > methods? TestSuites are for grouping together tests to treat them as
> > > > one unit. Since these suites are just one test, it doesn't seem to
> > > > provide much value.
> > > >
> > > > * main method launching text runner - There are some tests that
> > > > contain "main" methods which run the enclosing test via a JUnit text
> > > > runner. Most IDEs have built-in support for JUnit and can launch any
> > > > test arbitrarily and Ant can do the same thing. Does anyone launch
> > > > tests via these methods?
> > > >
> > > > My proposal would be to clean up these inconsistencies by eliminating
> > > > them, but what does everyone else think?
> > > >
> > > > -Nathan
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 



Mime
View raw message