harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [classlib][test] Migration to testNG?
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:31:25 GMT
Like I mentioned in another reply; exclusions for failing tests are bad. The
only real requirement here is for separate invocation for 'bootclasspath
tests (api)', 'impl tests' and 'os-specific' tests.

As for that wiki page you mentioned - Are there really issues, beyond the
failed exclusions, that is. I contend that if it didn't resolve the issues,
that's because it was fully implemented. Not every project needs to follow
the conventions, but it seems like only one or two of the class library
modules do use it; 'luni' and ???.


On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Regis <xu.regis@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

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