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 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:31:07 GMT
If anyone's curious, here are the JUnit 4.4 release notes that have a good
summary of the new stuff - assertThat/Matchers, assumptions and theories.

http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/ReleaseNotes4.4.html

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> As far as I remember my two years old experiments with TestNG - it
> groups all Junit tests (say from all classlib modules) into the one
> group while running in JUnit compatibility mode. So the reports
> produced by JuntReport didn't look very nice. By the way, I remember
> there was some old contribution about xml-based exclude lists for
> JUnit that allowed fine-grained (method-based) control over the test
> execution. I don't remember exact JIRA number. However, we may search
> for it. It was from George Harley.
>
> Regards,
> Alexei
>
> 2008/6/16, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
> > On 13/06/2008, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > 2008/6/12 Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>:
> >  > > This is slightly off track, but my concern about TestNG is that
> there are
> >  > > already quite a lot of steps for someone new to Harmony to get the
> source
> >  > > code and run the tests (both for the whole of Harmony and for a
> single
> >  > class
> >  > > library module).  Certainly for Eclipse users if we switched to
> TestNG
> >  > this
> >  > > would add another step, although I'm not sure about command-line
> users.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > The cost to make use of current tests is low, IMHO.
> >  > I have mentioned that we can add TestNG target to replace Junit
> target.
> >  > From the command-line users'  perspective, they still use the same
> >  > command to run the test.
> >  > The only difference would be the command will invoke TestNG to run our
> >  > test.
> >  > For Eclipse users, they can adopt plug-in for TestNG, it is quite the
> >  > same as plug-in for junit.
> >  > So I think we can migration to TestNG smoothly for the user.
> >  > What's more, they can pick up their desired tests more conveniently.
> >
> >
> >
> > My point was that for Eclipse users it would be an extra step to download
> >  the TestNG plug-in, where as the JUnit plugin already comes with
> Eclipse.  I
> >  realise that this isn't the biggest consideration, but I feel that our
> setup
> >  is already quite complex so I thought it would be worth mentioning.  I
> would
> >  assume that switching to JUnit 4 would not require any extra steps
> because
> >  Eclipse already has support for it embedded.
> >
> >
> >  For test developers,  on the other hand, it is a little complex.
> >  > But  we want to upgrade to a new tool, no matter Junit 4 or TestNG, we
> >  > need to pay for it.Their efforts are similar.
> >  > For TestNG, we need add annotations for each testcase, classify them
> >  > to right groups.
> >  > The good news is we still can use original assert* as before since
> >  > TestNG include JUnit's Assert class.
> >  > As Nathan mentioned , we can use hamcrest as well if we want.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > Of course if switching to TestNG solves some really major problems
> then
> >  > it
> >  > > would probably be worth it, but the only thing I can see that it
> gives us
> >  > > over JUnit 4 is being able to run different sets of tests on
> different
> >  > OS's
> >  > > and to me that doesn't seem as important as having a project that's
> easy
> >  > to
> >  > > access.  Just my 2p worth...
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > We can replace the exclude files  to get a more accurate tracking for
> >  > failed test.
> >  > We can tell difference between public API tests and harmony specific
> >  > implementation tests .
> >  > We can archive all tests together into a jar.
> >  > I think there should be other benefits as well :)
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it would be good to be able to reduce the exclude list to just
> >  contain individual methods and keep track of it a bit better, although I
> >  think some of this can be achieved with JUnit and using different
> folders.
> >  I agree the TestNG solution seems neater and more flexible, I'm just not
> >  convinced yet that the benefit we would be getting is worth the cost to
> >  upgrade.  I'm also wondering about the overhead for developers.  E.g am
> I
> >  going to have to add four different annotations to every new test I
> write in
> >  the TestNG system?
> >
> >
> >
> >  > --
> >
> > > Best Regards
> >  > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
> >  >
> >  > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >  >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >  Sian
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Unless stated otherwise above:
> >  IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> >  741598.
> >  Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >
>

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