harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:19:35 GMT
I was thinking of putting in as much information as possible :)

So if there is a way to run a single test class using our current build 
system,
it should be in there. The manual method mentioned in this thread should
also be listed - give everyone as much info as possible.

Regards,
Oli

Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> +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
>>
>
>

-- 
Oliver Deakin
IBM United Kingdom Limited


Mime
View raw message