incubator-etch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Dixson" <>
Subject Re: interoperability testing... [again]
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:10:18 GMT
Scott.. if you have something written already then lets see it
working. I would rather get some experience with it before worrying
about migrating to some other test technology. Testing is an ongoing
challenge. I am interested certainly, but not as interested as I am in
other Etch enhancements like a name/discovery service.

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, scott comer (sccomer) <> wrote:
> well, the interop testing framework is needed to be able to say with
> confidence that all the
> various operating modes and language binding combinations actually work.
> this is done
> now with expensive manual testing, when it is done at all. this was a hot
> button with louis
> and he wanted it also for cuae use.
> i'd say, in general, testing is just about the highest priority thing there
> is. plus, the code for
> this is written, mostly, with some tweaking needed to accommodate any
> suggestions here.
> one thing i don't like is the xml is ugly. but a possible deployment
> scenario is as an ant
> task, in which case the xml is a given.
> what i didn't discuss is parameter substitution, which can occur at each
> level as you
> progress down, and also parameter declarations with default values.
> i'm trying to gauge if this is where we want to go or of anyone knows of a
> worked
> solution that we should look at.
> scott out
> J.D. Liau (jliau) wrote:
>> This framework definitely will help Etch developers down the road but I
>> see this as lower priority item compares to other near term enhancements
>> such as name service.
>>  What kind of control can the framework have on the interface level?  For
>> example, each run has different set of values for method parameters.
>> Extend <stdouttg> and <stderrtag> to support timestamp?
>> ________________________________
>> From: Scott Comer (sccomer) Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 9:14 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: rfc: interoperability testing... [again]
>> [sorry, i flubbed the link. -scott]
>> i've put a note up on the wiki about ideas for interoperability testing.
>> Interoperability Testing Framework
>> <
>> g+Framework>
>> please review and comment.
>> thanks,
>> scott out

View raw message