jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Perez" <mper...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Unit tests for known issues
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:49:29 GMT
I think that this article tracks that issue offering some solutions.

http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4603

Not sure if it can be helpful.

Martin

On 7/7/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not as far as I know :-(. I know TestNG supports different strategies
> for this kind of behavior , but I cannot recall having support for
> this in JUnit.
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
> ---
> (http://themindstorms.blogspot.com)
>
>
> On 7/7/06, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Question to any JUnit gurus out there: Is there a standard way or a
> > best practice for creating unit tests for known issues for which no
> > immediate fix is expected? There are currently a few such tests in the
> > Jackrabbit test suite, but because they just report as "FAILED", it is
> > difficult to see whether the failures were caused by a recent change
> > or if they are just known issues.
> >
> > I think it is very valuable to have those known issue tests included
> > in the test suite, but it would make more sense if they'd be reported
> > as TODOs or just skipped unless explicitly asked for.
> >
> > The TODO: blocks in Perl's Test::More handle this very nicely, but I
> > don't know of any similar feature in JUnit except explicitly skipping
> > the tests based on a system property setting.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >
> > --
> > Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
> > Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
> >
>

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