Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of alexei.fedotov@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=IttF+8nWsb/vBttS+zKKHPNjdoDteq6SRypPps20arXrFVVcfnRO6mpme6LwylalKhGT61dyB+r8gyqor2I9bZOMvpgKy4d7SSO41xvaYTEY9/O1hsUDivEMGPMlN94/cJEprcxguWll/ChW1CYbaDr5WdvnKuBSEEWk2CSAu7s=
Message-ID: <c30d70960611290640yd67baddu7dea1d394499a1d1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:40:30 +0300
From: "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
In-Reply-To: <b6cb498e0611290634l7001d5dbr98be9690af52ae43@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3b3f27c60611281926s7d2816dam6d9c351150832632@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b6cb498e0611290023i30816604u13b79371a51c3b63@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960611290611i2919c5f7oadc4e5f92e2790d3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b6cb498e0611290634l7001d5dbr98be9690af52ae43@mail.gmail.com>

This class name cannot fit into my mind either. I cut&paste this
mantra from different posts of Alexey Zakharov or use bash history.
:-)

On 11/29/06, 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.
>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Thank you,
Alexei