openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dick <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] refactor @AllowFailure
Date Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:46:59 GMT
Hi Donald,

I think @Ignore is pretty much what I'm looking for for these excluded
tests. Whether we add a new annotation or rename @AllowFailure doesn't
matter much in the grand scheme of things. I think it's better to not run
the tests that we don't expect to work rather than running them and
displaying an error message (wastes CPU time, the developers' time
interpreting results, gives new developers a bad view of the project, etc.).


In addition we should be consistent about how we detect a testcase that will
or will not execute on a specific database. The @DatabasePlatform annotation
is a good first step in this direction, but it's a bit brittle - if we have
multiple JDBC drivers on the classpath it doesn't work as one would expect.
Moving @DatabasePlatform to SingleEM/SingleEMF TestCase is another good
improvement (checking the openjpa config at this time).

I think a lot of our needs can be solved by upgrading to jUnit 4 and using
@Assume and @Ignore (in addition @BeforeClass and @AfterClass will be nice).
If we can't get to the bottom of the memory issues with jUnit 4 or if it
looks like it's likely to take a while I'd be in favor of adding our own
@Ignore.

-mike

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> wrote:

> Reviving the sub-discussion about @Ignore in OPENJPA-998...
>
> Currently, there are junit tests that use simple if() checks to skip
> running tests on certain DBs or when certain DBDictionary properties are not
> enabled.  If we had a standard mechanism like @Ignore, we could use the
> ClassSelector.java (or Eclipse search, or ...) to easily discover which
> tests are not being run against all supported DBs.
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
>
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Mike, after thinking about this some more, I guess there are 2 different
>> test needs here -
>> 1) allow some tests to be skipped due to a boolean condition (like if the
>> test is running on DB2), which OPENJPA-998 provides via the @Ignore
>> annotation
>> 2) convert the surefire excludes list in pom.xml into annotations, via an
>> @Optional or similar system property, as you suggest below and could use
>> OPENJPA-949 for the JIRA work.
>>
>> I support renaming @AllowFailure to something like @Optional which uses a
>> system property as the default activator.  Besides the default all/true or
>> none/false conditions, we could also support a package/classname value like
>> -
>> -Dopenjpa.optional.tests=org.apache.openjpa.persistence.query.*
>> to allow running a subset of the normally excluded tests.
>>
>> I would also check the @Optional annotation before the @Ignore annotation,
>> so these non-normal tests will be skipped before the conditional code
>> (usually in setup()) is run for the @Ignore.
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> I would rather see us use a Junit v4 annotation like @Ignore as provided
>>> via OPENJPA-998 (which just needs someone to review and commit it...)
>>>
>>> /**
>>>  * Signals to the harness to ignore the annotated test.
>>>  *
>>>  */
>>> @Target({TYPE, METHOD})
>>> @Retention(RUNTIME)
>>> public @interface Ignore {
>>>    boolean value() default true;
>>>    String message() default "";
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> After the above is added, the @AllowFailure support can be removed and
>>> the ClassSelector.java updated to look for @Ignore by default.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> The AllowFailure annotation is very useful in that it allows specific
>>>> test
>>>> methods to be ignored during a typical Maven build.
>>>>
>>>> The implementation, however is rather confusing as a "clean" build of
>>>> OpenJPA will typically contain several stack traces from exceptions.
>>>> Running
>>>> these optional tests that currently do not pass just consumes CPU cycles
>>>> that could be better spent elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> I propose refactoring @AllowFailure to be called @OptionalTest (or just
>>>> @Optional) and updating the supporting methods in PersistenceTestCase so
>>>> that test methods (or classes) annotated with @OptionalTest are skipped
>>>> unless a jvm system property is true (ie -Dopenjpa.optional.tests=true).
>>>>
>>>> I think this will save everyone's CPU cycles without violating the
>>>> intent of
>>>> @AllowFailure. In addition with this change we could resurrect the
>>>> changes
>>>> for OPENJPA-770 and we could clean up the root pom.xml a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have strong opinions about @AllowFailure?
>>>>
>>>> -mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message