harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivanov, Alexey A" <alexey.a.iva...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:25:30 GMT

Don't remove suite() method from
javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_AbstractElement_MASNoLockTest because
it's there on purpose. Why it's there is explained in the javadoc
comment to the test.

Alexey A. Ivanov
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nathan Beyer [mailto:nbeyer@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:27 AM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
>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?

View raw message