harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Charles Lee <littlee1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Rethinking testing conventions
Date Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:50:50 GMT
That's great. But most old test case is in JUnit 3.8 style. We can follow
the latest junit when we add the new test cases. What about the old ones?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:

> I've been experimenting with JUnit4 extensions in an attempt to find a
> more simple approach to our basic testing needs. The two major
> requirements that I see in Harmony's test infrastructure (at least the
> classlib stuff) are - exclusions and platform-specific tests. (I'm
> ignoring the bootstrap-classpath stuff for now.) To handle these
> today, we have exclusion files, which are loaded and used to exclude
> certain files and then we branch the test folders by  platform. Each
> of these has issues - exclusions are skipping whole files, not just
> specific failing tests; exclusions aren't well reported on; test files
> in multiple branches can have duplicate code, etc.
>
> One concept I've been working with is using annotations to describe
> the tests for the purposes of exclusions and for platform definition.
> The annotations can then be utilized in many ways via JUnit - method
> rules, request processing filters and others. Here's an example of how
> the tests might look.
>
> class FileTest {
>  @Test
>  @Platform(os="windows")
>  public void testSomethingOnWindows { }
>
>  @Test
>  @Platform(os="linux", arch="x86_64")
>  public void testSomethingOnLinuxX86_64 {}
>
>  @Test
>  @Exclude(os="windows",vm="drlvm")
>  public void testSomethingExcludedOnWindowsDRLVM {}
> }
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
>



-- 
Yours sincerely,
Charles Lee

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