Mailing-List: contact cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Cactus Developers List" <cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
From: "Vincent Massol" <vmassol@pivolis.com>
To: "'Cactus Developers List'" <cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org>,
   <ndlesiecki@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: 1.5 Date WAS: RE: Unit tests for server side code?
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:12:31 +0200
Message-ID: <01ed01c344a2$92eea550$2502a8c0@vma>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20030707153952.24202.qmail@web13608.mail.yahoo.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:ndlesiecki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 07 July 2003 17:40
> To: Cactus Developers List
> Subject: 1.5 Date WAS: RE: Unit tests for server side code?
> 
> 
> --- Vincent Massol <vmassol@pivolis.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand. There are two kinds of unit tests: logic unit
test,
> > tested in isolation and integration unit tests. Logic unit test is
> > executed in the cactus framework project and iut in the
sample-servlet
> > one. What's wrong with this?
> >
> 
> Nothing at all! I understand perfectly. However, there are no luts for
any

luts?

> Cactus code that relies on objects like request, session, etc. Anyway,
I
> think that using mocks in the framework is the right way to go, and I
> agree
> that we should wait until after 1.5. However, that begs the
question--when
> are we going to branch and/or release 1.5? I have a certain momentum
built
> on this issue  now, and I don't want to wait for too long to finish
it.

Ideally this should happen sometime this week or the coming week end.
You can of course implement the feature on your local machine or we can
create a branch for it if you wish?

> 
> If this feature does not make it into 1.5, I strongly suggest that we
put
> it into 1.5.1. It will correct an extremely frustrating bug.

Ok.

> 
> Regarding DynaMock, it seems like a good idea. If what you say about
it is
> correct and it is only version 0.09, then I don't think we can
reasonably
> expect API compatiblilty.

There are some projects that are afraid to do releases. The MockObjects
project is one of them. It's been there for 2 years now. The DynaMock is
new stuff though and has only gone through 2 releases. I know it's
changing a bit in CVS at the moment but nothing that we cannot manage
easily.

-Vincent

> 
> Cheers,
> Nick
> --- Vincent Massol <vmassol@pivolis.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:ndlesiecki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: 06 July 2003 17:15
> > > To: Cactus Developers List
> > > Subject: Unit tests for server side code?
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > '
> > > I notice we don't have any unit tests for server-side cactus code,
or
> > at
> > > least, that's what's implied by the following comment:
> > >
> > > " Run all the unit tests of Cactus that do not need a servlet
> > environment
> > > to
> > > run. These other tests will be exercised in the sample
application."
> > >
> > > (From TestAll.java--plus I didn't find any.)
> > >
> > > This strikes me as less than desirable, since it makes it hard to
> > test-
> > > drive
> > > my addition of unique keys. After all, the behavior should be
> > transparent
> > > from an "integration test" standpoint.
> >
> > I don't understand. There are two kinds of unit tests: logic unit
test,
> > tested in isolation and integration unit tests. Logic unit test is
> > executed in the cactus framework project and iut in the
sample-servlet
> > one. What's wrong with this?
> >
> > >
> > > So, I toyed with the idea of starting to add at least one test (to
the
> > > class
> > > I was modifying). That prompted me to ask the question: which mock
> > > framework
> > > should we use to support our "server-side" unit tests? I'm in
favor of
> > > easymock, since I know it well. However, I feel that the rest of
the
> > team
> > > may have more thoroughly researched opinions than mine on the
subject.
> >
> > Yeah, we've not had to use any mockobject fwk so far and you're
right we
> > need to pick one for our logic unit tests. I personally prefer
DynaMock.
> > I find EasyMock too verbose. I'm including an example project
comparing
> > the two (it also compares Cactus with them). Of course the example
is
> > really simplistic but when the examples become more complex,
DynaMock
> > shines.
> >
> > -Vincent
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/x-zip-compressed name=comparison.zip
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cactus-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org