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: [drlvm][jvmti][testing] I want to add JVMTI tests to drlvm commit checks
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:48:58 GMT

I observed similar quirks with paths while intergrating kernel tests
into build. AFAIU the "Grand Design" is the following: there are
abstracted targets and isolated component descriptors; build system
iterates through all components and tries to apply given target to
each component. So there are various tricks to stop it running tests
multiple times a-la "recurring inclusion protection" in C headers.
I do not grok how it calculates dependencies though, but it is quite
easy to drive it mad and it starts doing wrong sequence of targets and
picks wrong components etc.
So I just snipped off that fanciful machinery and made simple subant
for "kernel.test" target - see its definition in build/make/build.xml,
and compare with nearby "smoke.test" one.

2006/10/31, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> >> I don't want to create a huge discussion out of it like most [testing]
> >> discussions become. Just want to know your arguments to create one
> >> more tests category.
> >
> > Because the current frameworks are... wacky.  I can't turn off smoke
> > tests without *recompiling* the test.  The c-unit test rig is kinda
> > cool, but inappropriate.  Maybe kernel could be used.
> Ok I see your point. I'll try to create my own tests building and
> running category, maybe if it is good enough we'll transfer smoke tests
> to it in the future.

I agree, better to add separate category as there is certain specific
and building and running JVMTI tests. Indeed kernel tests could be
used as a sample.

> > it sounds like you just want to launch a set of conventional junit tests
> > with a special invocation of java to get the agent running, right?
> Hmm I didn't think of using junit before your suggestion. Now that I
> think of it, it can probably work for me. It appears that it is possible
> to pass special <vmarg/> to <junit> task. I'll give it a try.
> >> Now that I looked at the smoke tests build more closely and found a
> >> paths problem which I don't know how to fix, I am also inclined to
> >> make my own build script to have it separated. <joke>I would at least
> >> know how it works and own this secret like someone who wrote smoke
> >> build script does.</joke>
> >
> > That's what I was hoping to avoid.  Something conventional.  JUnit or
> > TestNG (TestNG! TestNG!), and a separate ant script invoked from main
> > script.
> Hmm I am not familiar with TestNG at all. I'll try junit first.
> --
> Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division

View raw message