Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-cactus-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 7343 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 15:39:52 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 15:39:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 10379 invoked by uid 97); 7 Jul 2003 15:42:20 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-cactus-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 10372 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 15:42:19 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 15:42:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 7252 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2003 15:39:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cactus-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Cactus Developers List" Reply-To: "Cactus Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list cactus-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 7215 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 15:39:50 -0000 Received: from web13608.mail.yahoo.com (216.136.175.119) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 15:39:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20030707153952.24202.qmail@web13608.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.162.41.162] by web13608.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:39:52 PDT Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Lesiecki Nicholas Reply-To: ndlesiecki@yahoo.com Subject: 1.5 Date WAS: RE: Unit tests for server side code? To: Cactus Developers List In-Reply-To: <011401c343db$5d198c00$7ef584c3@vma> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --- Vincent Massol 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 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Nick --- Vincent Massol 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