Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 202.81.18.152 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of paulex.yang@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <456DAF90.6090504@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:04:32 +0000
From: Paulex Yang <paulex.yang@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
References: <3b3f27c60611281926s7d2816dam6d9c351150832632@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6cb498e0611290023i30816604u13b79371a51c3b63@mail.gmail.com>
 <c30d70960611290611i2919c5f7oadc4e5f92e2790d3@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6cb498e0611290634l7001d5dbr98be9690af52ae43@mail.gmail.com>
 <200611291524.kATFOXh8018265@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <200611291524.kATFOXh8018265@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Mark Hindess wrote:
> 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.)
>   
+1 to keep a consistent style.
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM