harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <nbe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][test] Migration to testNG?
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:21:16 GMT
With annotation-based tests, just remove the annotation and that method is
no longer treated as a test. However, the same thing could be done today by
just changing the name of the method to NOT start with 'test'. I don't see
any approach being good though as it keeps the issues hidden; nothing makes
them stand out.

-Nathan

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> As far as I understand in spite of the fact there were no
> TestNG-related discussions since 2006 the problem is still relevant.
> There are big exclude lists in some classlib modules still, and many
> tests are excluded only because of a couple of failing methods.
> Frankly speaking I'm not familiar with new feature introduced in Junit
> 4.4. Are there any enhancements that can help to resolve this
> exclude-whole-class-because-of-one-bad-method issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexei
>
> 2008/6/11, Regis <xu.regis@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Regis <xu.regis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Matcher and Assumptions are great ideas! Thanks Nathan.
> > > > They would be very helpful for our new test cases. But I notice that
> > > > Junit 4.4 doesn't support group which is very important feature for
> > > > both old tests and new tests. We can partition our test suite and run
> > > > them separately. It's make our tests more flexible and configurable,
> > > > and it's the main reason we discuss to migrate to TestNG long time
> ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't we partition our tests already? Isn't that what the 'api' and
> 'impl'
> > > folders are about?
> > >
> > Yes, but it's not enough. We have discussed and created a wiki page[1]
> about
> > how
> > to configuration and group harmony tests. The page is a little old, but I
> > think the problems
> > it tried to resolve still exist now. The partitions are not only include
> > 'api' and 'impl', but also
> > include partition of different os, architecture, partition of broken
> tests
> > and level of tests.
> > folder structure or exclude files can't help in this complex situation,
> so
> > we need some tools
> > to help us to deal with this, i think TestNG is suitable. If JUnit 4.4
> can
> > do it, i will vote to JUnit,
> > update to a new version is always easier than switch to a new tool after
> > all.
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Regis.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Nathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Regis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That discussion was a very long time ago. Is there still value in
> > TestNG?
> > > > > I'd prefer to move to JUnit 4.4. All of our current tests will
> > continue to
> > > > > work and new tests can be implemented using the latest conventions
> and
> > > > > older
> > > > > tests can be updated as we get to them. JUnit 4.4 is a far cry from
> > 4.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the things I think would be create for our use and testing
> in
> > > > > general
> > > > > - Matchers and the 'assertThat' - much more readable code and
> readable
> > > > > failure messages
> > > > > - Assumptions and the 'assumeThat' - allows methods to add
> statements
> > that
> > > > > guarantee that preconditions for the test are correct; this allows
> > tests
> > > > > to
> > > > > fail such that you know it's an environment issue and not an actual
> > test
> > > > > failure
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're not familiar with matchers, check out this quick tutorial
> -
> > > > > http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/wiki/Tutorial.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  Hi, all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > We had discussed the migration to testNG before and got some
> > conclusions
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > grouping[1]
> > > > > > including how to deal with boot path test[2]. Am i missing
> > something?
> > > > > > Is it still in our schedule? I think it's valueable to Harmony.
> > > > > > I volunteer to carry out this job if no one objects.  Any other
> > > > > > volunteers?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, we can only add some ant tasks to integrate testng at
the
> > > > > > beginning.
> > > > > > So our original junit tests can still work at the mean time
when
> > > > > > migrating.
> > > > > > When one module's migration task is finished, we can judge the
> > result
> > > > > > to dertermine whether we should go on for other modules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we can create a branch for luni to start this work, shall
> we?
> > > > > > therefore there won't be any impact on other's development.
> > > > > > Once it is completed in the branch, we could merge it back to
our
> > trunk.
> > > > > > Does it make sense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any sugestions or comments are welcomed. Thanks very much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg12413.html
> > > > > > [3]
> > http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#annotations
> > > > > >  --
> > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
> > > > > >  China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message