harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:24:31 GMT
+1 for having the doc. But personally I don't know the way how to run
tests from the particular test class (not to speak of individual test
methods) using the current build system. So I don't really know what
exactly should be copy/pasted.  Or you was talking about by-hand test
invocation cmd mentioned above?

Thanks,

2006/12/5, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com>:
> Agree! When I tried harmony on some applications, I found it is very
> hard to run the test of application mainly because there is no
> instruction for that at all. So I think it is also not very easy for
> user who have interest to run tests of harmony. And a good instruction
> may be good for having many user's help to run harmony tests on
> various platforms.
>
> On 12/4/06, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps some kind of "How To Run The Classlib Tests" section on
> > the website would be useful? (Assuming there isn't already one with
> > this information in) Then none of us would have to remember - it
> > would be right there to copy/paste :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oliver
> >
> >
> > Ivan Popov 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
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Deakin
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony Wu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>


-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
View raw message