lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: Uwe's question
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:06:02 GMT
Hmmm, didn't reopen the JIRA, should I? Or will it just magically get into
Michael's queue?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Erick Erickson <>wrote:

> <<By the way, why does LuceneTestCaseJ4 extend TestWatchman and also a
> instance field extends that class?>>
> No good reason, I plead confusion when figuring out how to use it. I've
> attached a patch to Lucene 2037 that removes the LuceneTestCaseJ4 extending
> TestWatchman.
> <<I do not understand the whole magic behind, this is totally confusing to
> me – annotating a field that is never used in code by an annotation is
> stupid and looks totally incorrect (I mean the field holding the
> TestWatchman-subclass).>>
> Well, this is to provide the same functionality as LuceneTestCase. I'm
> reaching a bit here since I haven't been in that code lately, but...
> LocalizedTestCase called runBare in LuceneTestCase which reported the seed
> value if an exception was thrown. I couldn't find a good way to access
> runBare or analogs in Junit4, but the interceptor pattern worked as well.
> The interceptor is called by the Junit framework on test events, so there
> aren't references to it in the Lucene test code. There are other places that
> call runBare, so I assumed that if anyone wanted to use Junit4 with those
> classes it would be a good thing to allow.
> I think the interceptor pattern is an elegant way to "do something" at
> discrete points in the test run, although it is a bit opaque.
> Most of this was put in when I was trying to move LocalizedTestCase to the
> Junit4 world. We didn't do that, but this still needs to be kept if we want
> LuceneTestCaseJ4 to be a drop-in replacement for LuceneTestCase.
> <<< - This is another thing why I am against the migration of our already
> proven tests.>>>
> If you'll recall the discussion at the time, neither am I. I do believe,
> though, that if anyone wants to change a test class to use Junit4 it's a
> good thing to have something that'll drop in without surprises, which is
> what I was trying for.
> Erick

View raw message