lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Uwe's question
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:08:40 GMT
I poked around a little and didn't find any joy. But the *really clumsy* way
of doing this would be to add the @Ignore annotation to any test in the
class that you didn't want to run, then just run the class.

Or, equivalently, comment out the @Test annotation. I'd prefer adding the
@Ignore though so there's be some chance of noticing if it was inadvertently
checked in.

FWIW
Erick

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jason Rutherglen <
jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I've never tried to learn a command-line invocation of a test
> > case for a single test method, I've always just used the IDE
> > to run individual methods....
>
> Right, I've been doing bunches of Solr dev which for me only works
> from the command line... I'm open to suggestions though!
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Erick Erickson
> <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can use Junit4 whenever you want right now. Just derive from
> > LuceneTestCaseJ4 rather than LuceneTestCase. And annotate
> > each test with @Test and you should be fine.
> > Junit4 does allow you to mix-n-match 3/4 tests
> > *on a whole class basis*. That is, all of the tests in a class must
> > be either 3-style deriving from TestCase and named appropriately)
> > or 4-style (annotated, with whatever Junit4 features you'd like).
> > The consensus seems to be that converting old tests to
> > Junit4 just to get them all using Junit4 isn't a good use
> > of time, and at least introduces the possibility that it would
> > mess things up. Upgrading old tests to Junit4 to improve
> > them, especially to speed them up (@BeforeClass and @
> > AfterClass can help) *is* a good use of time.
> > I might convert an old-style test case if I was
> > working in it, but that's probably a personal preference.
> > I've never tried to learn a command-line invocation of a test
> > case for a single test method, I've always just used the IDE
> > to run individual methods....
> > Erick
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jason Rutherglen
> > <jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Lets go to JUnit 4 if possible...
> >>
> >> Does it provide method level testing?  (i.e. one doesn't need to
> >> execute every test method just to check the results of one method)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Ok this seems a discussion related to JUnit 4, so I'll port what I've
> >> > said
> >> > about it from the other thread (doing the code cleanup):
> >> >
> >> > {quote}
> >> > Erik, I'm totally with you on JUnit 4. I think the @Test annotation is
> >> > really not a big deal (it's actually very easy to migrate all the
> >> > current
> >> > tests to JUnit 4 with the added import using some script. Even
> manually
> >> > it
> >> > shouldn't be such a big deal.
> >> >
> >> > @Ignore is a perfect other advantage of JUnit4. I've found some tests
> >> > which
> >> > were prefixed with _, i.e. _testXYZ just to disable them. Nobody knows
> >> > about
> >> > them until he looks at the code (and pays attention). @Ignore would
> have
> >> > been better.
> >> >
> >> > And there are lots of other advantages, like the @Before and @After
> (not
> >> > only class). Another problem I've found in the tests is that not all
> >> > extended LuceneTestCase, and usually their setUp and tearDown
> >> > implementations were wrong - not calling super first/last. When I
> moved
> >> > them
> >> > to extend LuceneTestCase they broke (I fixed them, don't worry).
> >> > However,
> >> > that could never happen if the super's methods were tagged w/
> >> > @Before/After,
> >> > because JUnit would take care running them before/after their
> >> > sub-classes'
> >> > @Before/After. So that's another win for JUnit4.
> >> >
> >> > And of course the @Before/AfterClass are really great !
> >> > {quote}
> >> >
> >> > I think the @Before/After annotations can be a real win for our tests.
> >> >
> >> > My two cents,
> >> > Shai
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Erick Erickson
> >> > <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, "Things got busy (tm)". Uwe's point if valid; unless there's
> >> >> demonstrable gain, moving things to Junit4 "just for fun" is wasted
> >> >> motion,
> >> >> indeed dangerous. I was focusing on LocalizedTestCase to understand
> the
> >> >> place of runBare etc. in the scheme of things since when I created
> >> >> LuceneTestCaseJ4 that was something I wanted to figure out to make
it
> a
> >> >> replacement for LuceneTestCase.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't point to a compelling reason to shake up the code, the only
> >> >> improvement it would have is having a demonstration of using the
> Junit4
> >> >> @RunWith annotation for future reference.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, I've no compelling reason to push that patch forward. If y'all
> >> >> think
> >> >> it's worth it I'll be happy to crank that patch back up again, it'll
> >> >> take a
> >> >> few days though. It does affect a several files, and if the main
> value
> >> >> here
> >> >> is an exemplar of the @RunWith annotation, perhaps there's a better
> >> >> place to
> >> >> put that in.
> >> >>
> >> >> Erick
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 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 didn't forget about your patch Erick, in my opinion there is
> nothing
> >> >>> wrong with it. I hope its not discouraging you, the problem is
a few
> >> >>> of us
> >> >>> have spent countless hours trying to debug this hard-to-reproduce
> Thai
> >> >>> test
> >> >>> failure problem.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It failed in the existing tests, too, with Junit 3 on hudson (one
> >> >>> time!).
> >> >>> At this point, i start to wonder if it could be related to stuff
> like
> >> >>> this:
> >> >>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6683975
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't think we should let this stop progress with the tests,
if
> you
> >> >>> think we should move LocalizedTestCase to junit 4 lets do it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Robert Muir
> >> >>> rcmuir@gmail.com
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message