harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Regis <xu.re...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][jndi][ldap] - Refine implementation of LdapSchemaContextImpl (HARMONY-5716)
Date Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:32:42 GMT
I think real data is always better than mock data.

Mark Hindess wrote:
> On 16 April 2008 at 18:54, Regis <xu.regis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ideally, I could use "real" schema data for testing, as we saw, the data 
>> is big,
>> 80k+ in serialized form, I can't image how many hashmap.set() would be used.
>> IMHO, if we used mock data, hashmap.set() is the best choice. Maybe using
>> text data is best the choice for me now.
> 
> You say "ideally", but I don't really see the benefit of "real" schema
> data over a set of mock data constructed to have the same test coverage.
> Is 80k+ really needed to achieve test coverage?
No, we could use very small mock data to achieve test coverage. But 
achieving
test coverage is not only purpose we write unit test, right? If the data 
file is too big for
the ut, I could use mock data and rewrite the corresponding tests as 
scenario test add
to bti.
> 
> -Mark.
> 
>> Tony Wu wrote:
>>> What we need actually is some hashmaps. why we can not create it in
>>> java src code such as setUp method through several/a lot hashmap.set()
>>> . What's your concern on this manner?
>>>
>>> On 4/16/08, Regis <xu.regis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree that the large binary file is hard to modify and maitain, maybe we
>>>> have another choice to
>>>> construct the schemaTable, using raw text data returned from server. We ne
>> ed
>>>> parse the raw text
>>>> data first, and then construct the hashmap. The data is in text format, so
>>>> it's easy understand and modify.
>>>>
>>>> What i concerned about this way is for unit test it seems a bit complex an
>> d
>>>> involve process of
>>>> parsing schema which should be tested separately.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Regis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>>> Regis Xu (JIRA) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The file contains necessary data to construct LdapSchemaContextImpl
>>>> instance for testing.
>>>>>> LdapSchemaContextImpl is constructed using schema data queried from
LDAP
>>>> server, then
>>>>>> it cached all scehma data in "schemaTable", it's fast for searching.
>>>>>> It's best if we could test LdapSchemaContextImpl with "real data"
>>>> returned from LDAP server. So we serialize the "real" schemaTable to the
>>>> file and deserialize it when testing, then we got a "real"
>>>> LdapSchemaContextImpl without connecting with server.
>>>>>> for 1)  we can construct the table from java code but the schema
data is
>>>> too large, i think it's not reasonable
>>>>>> to put it in java file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we could remove .ser from file name, which cause confusion
with
>>>> testing serialization capabilities.
>>>>>> I hope i had myself explained clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is a clear explanation Regis, but I have a concern that this
>>>> serialized file is a large binary blob that is hard for people to modify
i
>> f
>>>> they choose to change the tests.
>>>>> I realize that we don't want to require an LDAP server to test against,
>>>> and your idea for capturing the "real data" as a serialized data object
>>>> makes sense.  But, what if there is a bug or enhancement that somebody els
>> e
>>>> needs to make, and they don't have your LDAP server available to re-create
>>>> the "real data"?  I think it will be a maintenance problem.
>>>>> Maybe I'm being too unreasonable, and right now I can't think of a
>>>> different way to do it (other than write the Java source code to create th
>> e
>>>> "real data" hashmap of hashmaps I saw when I deserialized the blob).
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Best Regards,
Regis.

Mime
View raw message