Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6839 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2008 14:58:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Oct 2008 14:58:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 62542 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2008 14:58:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 62250 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2008 14:58:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 62239 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2008 14:58:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:58:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 194.196.100.162 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of mark.hindess@googlemail.com) Received: from [194.196.100.162] (HELO mtagate2.uk.ibm.com) (194.196.100.162) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:57:02 +0000 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m99EtUaa006997 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:55:33 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m99EtS7D4440316 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:55:28 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m99EtSLv011647 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:55:28 +0100 Received: from anaheim.local (dhcp-9-20-183-80.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.183.80]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m99EtSsd011644 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:55:28 +0100 Message-Id: <200810091455.m99EtSsd011644@d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-16) with nmh-1.2 In-reply-to: References: <1367711648.1222235264363.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <48D9E27C.20400@gmail.com> <48E1E68E.5070102@gmail.com> <200809301240.m8UCe1t8010297@d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Alexey Petrenko" message dated "Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:47:48 +0400." From: Mark Hindess To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: API tests failing on the RI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:55:28 +0100 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org In message , "Alexey Petrenko" writes: > > 2008/9/30 Mark Hindess : > > > > In order to fix this bug I had to fix a number of invalid API tests. > > I think it would be a good idea to: > > > > 1) Run the API tests against the RI > > > > 2) Create exclude lists - with references to the relevant JIRA - for > > non-bug differences so the tests can be regularly run on the RI and > > expected to pass cleanly > > > > 3) Fix the non-non-bug (!) differences. > > This job really needs to be done... I had a quick look at how much work this might but immediately hit an issue that I think is best discussed first. The luni test in: api/common/org/apache/harmony/luni/tests/java/io/FileTest.java has 52 asserts. One (on line 2153) fails on the RI (because of a fix in HARMONY-3207 for which no non-bug difference jira was created AFAIK). Does the exclude list need to exclude the entire test - which would seem to be a waste of potentially useful tests? Or is there a better way with junit 4? Or do we just start splitting out tests into separate source files - like FileNonBugDifferenceTest.java - for reference in exclude lists? I know we've discussed this many times before (along with repeatedly discounting testng) but I'd like to resolve this once and for all so we can use the tests to their full potential. This is a concrete example. How should we resolve this? I should stress that I have no strong opinion about testng or junit, but I do have a strong opinion about the need to understand the differences between the behaviour of our code and the RI particularly given the continuing absence of a TCK. To me this means running as many tests as possible on the RI to confirm that the tests are valid and documenting (close to the code if possible) or fixing every case where our behaviour doesn't match the RI. Regards, Mark.