openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Unit testing
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:24:45 GMT
I think we need to take responsibility for this individually. Test  
coverage reports usually show woeful under-testing, so it's really up  
to the developer to know whether a test case is needed or not.

It might be necessary at times to commit an urgent fix without having  
a full test suite to prove that the fix works, but best practice is  
to provide a test case along with the fix. We could make a guideline  
that until a test case is checked in, the JIRA issue should remain  
open. And when reviewing others' work, the missing test case can be  
used as a reason to "un-resolve" an issue.

But I agree with Kevin that integrating new features without test  
cases is evil.

In my experience, reminders long after the issue is resolved don't  
really work that well.

Craig

On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Phill Moran wrote:

> Via test coverage reports  would we not know what parts do not have
> corresponding tests and through commit history we would know who  
> added the
> fix/feature. So before the next release we can gently remind the  
> committers to
> submit the missing test.
> This is likely to be only the occasional committer problem as a  
> regular
> committer would monitor the forward progress they would see that a  
> test is
> missing and could add it - sort of its own reminder.
>
> Phill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dick [mailto:michael.d.dick@gmail.com]
> Sent: April 10, 2007 10:41 AM
> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Unit testing
>
> +1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests.
>
> Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs,  
> features, and
> improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other changes that  
> don't require a
> JIRA report (build files, null checks etc) we won't require new tests.
> I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was
> resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath  
> problem, etc).
>
>
> Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think  
> this is a good
> rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit tests we  
> can just
> check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if you were to  
> commit unit tests
> separately from the code changes. If you're reviewing the changes  
> based
> primarily on the commit email it might be easier to have them  
> separate.
>
> On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Patrick,
>> I agree with your concern.  Early on, I was at fault a couple of  
>> times
>> with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase.  But,
>> with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to
>> remember.  So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start
>> monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none  
>> were
>> provided.  Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA
>> issue.  Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the
>> point across.
>>
>> I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug
>> is easier said than done.  Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger
>> product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that
>> uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved.  Creating an
>> individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and
>> when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we
>> don't regress, and integrate the change.
>> I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these  
>> situations,
>> I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a  
>> while.
>>
>> As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should
>> be no excuse for lack of unit tests.  We need to provide repeatable
>> testcases for these new features.  If users are providing patches for
>> these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases
>> are provided.  If new features are committed without corresponding
>> testcases, should we back out the changes?  I know that's kind of
>> extreme, but it would make a point.  Of course, then we get into the
>> feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing  
>> unit
>> tests, then it's a moot point.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@bea.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It should be part of the commit acceptance process.
>>>
>>> I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with
>>> sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce
>>> this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit
>>> unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build
>>> file changes, etc.
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick Linskey
>>> BEA Systems, Inc.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> ___
>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>>> affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
>>> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
>>> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phill Moran [mailto:pjmoran@rogers.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM
>>>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Unit testing
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise
>>>> OpenJPA will loose out to other ORM tools that will be perceived
>>>> as less buggy.
>>>> What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also use
>>>> checkstyle to give some insight into the code as well
>>>>
>>>> Phill
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:plinskey@bea.com]
>>>> Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM
>>>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Unit testing
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put into
>>>> OpenJPA as new features are added. I understand that often,
>>>> creating unit tests are anticlimactic compared to implementing the
>>>> feature itself, but at least basic happy-path testing of new
>>>> features is pretty essential if we want to avoid these types of
>>>> problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good eyes aside, not
>>>> as reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a
>>>> feature is broken.
>>>>
>>>> I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified TDD
>>>> approach.
>>>> I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to demonstrate
>>>> the failure in order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that
>>>> personally, I'm much more likely to write a test while the problem
>>>> is still interesting than after it's resolved. In other words, I
>>>> never (well, rarely) have a command-line harness that I throw
>>>> together to demonstrate a problem. I try to always use a test case
>>>> instead. This strategy means that the only test-related overhead
>>>> is the effort involved to figure out how to programmatically test
>>>> for failure.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing SQL
>>>> or JDBC interactions is often percieved to be one of these things.
>>>> In the Kodo codebase, we ended up creating various means to get
>>>> around this; the SQLListenerTestCase is one such example. It turns
>>>> out that by extending SQLListenerTestCase, it becomes trivial to
>>>> check how much SQL was written and what the SQL looks like.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else have any thoughts about how to ensure that we
>>>> develop test cases as needed?
>>>>
>>>> -Patrick
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>> BEA Systems, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> _________
>>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries
>>>> and affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
>>>> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
>>>> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
>>>> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Abe White
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM
>>>>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-208) NoResultException
>>>>> and NonUniqueResultException are not thrown when expected
>>>>>
>>>>>> Went ahead and restored the previous behavior where the
>>>>>> QueryImpl itself checks for non-uniqueness and throws the
>>>>>> expected
>>>> exception.
>>>>>
>>>>> That breaks the single result optimization that was added for
>>>>> OPENJPA-168 when getSingleResult() is called.  There was a
>>>> reason we
>>>>> moved the validation to the kernel.  The previous code was
>>>> correct.
>>>>> You need to use the "hard" way of creating new exception types.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>>>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its
>>>> subsidiaries  and
>>>>> affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>>>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended
>>>> solely for the
>>>>> use of the individual or entity named in this message. If
>>>> you are not
>>>>> the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
>>>>> please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries
>>>> and affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
>>>> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
>>>> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
>>>> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>>> affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,
>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
>>> the use of the individual
>> or
>>> entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
>>> this by
>> email
>>> and then delete it.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Michael Dick
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message