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 ivan.g.popov@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.170 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=iLG7PGWkAayOWik26RQMIkoFXTb2snXJGV3aYiB2dVmWdrBMIHtXYX8YF/IYleZ3l/iyPQ/gmASH+1QmUq8i3k5R+xAJQYSbsKpAR+0PGzien48+UZx4C6mNYXHcxZvgUQ7kmFjTigOUteQNtlq1NZVoQE6IgDrmg6sI6p0TJpQ=
Message-ID: <b6cb498e0612191015q720c4be5wbc1a1b9989dc7e9e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:15:55 +0600
From: "Ivan Popov" <ivan.g.popov@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
In-Reply-To: <458807A7.2040705@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <32CD23D8C6B1454C9120C1525D521D67857230@nnsmsx411.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	 <457EE0E4.8040208@googlemail.com>
	 <c30d70960612190730q75ea24dfx1ec98f0c9444fdd2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <458807A7.2040705@pobox.com>

+1

On 12/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> My POV is that people don't have to create them, but if someone put one
> in because for whatever reason, they found it useful, leave it alone if
> it's not getting in the way
>
> geir
>
> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > Folks,
> > Have we decided anything consistent about having main() method in
> > JUnit tests? I've just created one test. Should I add a main() method?
> >
> > Any decision is better than no decision.
> >
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> That's great, thanks Sveta. Yes, I think this is definitely something to
> >> add to the main
> >> website eventually - a full set of instructions (expanding the current
> >> links to mail
> >> archives into their complete command lines etc.) would be really useful
> >> for any
> >> first time Harmony developer (and some of us longer lived ones ;) )
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Oliver
> >>
> >> Konovalova, Svetlana wrote:
> >> > I've just created the "Running the Classlib Tests" page [1], so that
> >> you
> >> > could share your experience there :)
> >> >
> >> > In the future we could add this stuff to the web-site, let's say, to
> >> the
> >> > testing page [2], where certain package-specific conventions are
> >> > proposed, but nothing is said about JUnit tests.
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/RunningTheClasslibTests
> >> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Sveta
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:32 PM
> >> > To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > Konovalova, Svetlana wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> IMHO we can start collecting info about running the classlib tests.
> >> >> I suggest to create a new wiki page, let's say, "Running The Classlib
> >> >> Tests" and add a link to it front the wiki front page > components >
> >> >> class library.
> >> >> ASA we get the clear picture of this issue and verify all the ways to
> >> >> run tests, we'll be able to post this info on the web-site.
> >> >> Want do you think?
> >> >> I'd be glad to help.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> Sveta
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:alexei.zakharov@gmail.com]
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:25 PM
> >> >> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
> >> >>
> >> >> +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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>