From dev-return-12140-apmail-openjpa-dev-archive=openjpa.apache.org@openjpa.apache.org Thu May 28 13:36:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83425 invoked from network); 28 May 2009 13:36:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 May 2009 13:36:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 84261 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2009 13:36:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 84238 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2009 13:36:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 84228 invoked by uid 99); 28 May 2009 13:36:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of curtisr7@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.220 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.220] (HELO mail-gx0-f220.google.com) (209.85.217.220) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:18 +0000 Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so5078253gxk.9 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 06:35:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Nm+iKuDDwGeUBWloxyo73/YtwoRrGP/QMcJ/aByDDSg=; b=Ct1E7y0PIqHfzlpjQ7kvaNEIYRxttx9wnLzOI4saS8IrYOXnxj/XxX1ICAcjTJ3rdb PHhUEMGocDtI1t7e0z+PvWxZAg9oa41uwvk2C44beuJqLQfHLlR08jBr52XRnJGXJG2v V4SSRd9emB7FyAG00UKJzg2gtay3p+eBL9GGY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=JByAX6jR+8xD7avD7rTnRA9dsSvlQYKvr+S1bBKamk8A5l1mjOS5kbhw9Sl2cp2S3s FcWDYj0HefcPRCM72YEP0mYVfueM+kSEnE9Lt+tV5Z/ApgrSjmGh71O/QnTrUwdL72Hj bwzFRUDMIvLhktpU/xc/qgsu/ahe92mLOCnU8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.131.1 with SMTP id i1mr2749831ybn.74.1243517753017; Thu, 28 May 2009 06:35:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8e68c8e90905272130y70f1c8d0lf23feb4f34bda3a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <72c1350f0905272002h3d33064bw542f757e75c7a45@mail.gmail.com> <18EC7A8C-5AE5-4A79-8F07-567694381751@SUN.com> <8e68c8e90905272130y70f1c8d0lf23feb4f34bda3a0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 08:35:52 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: System.out.println in test cases From: Rick Curtis To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001e680f1104f0c511046af90979 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001e680f1104f0c511046af90979 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +1 On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Albert Lee wrote: > +1 for removing no-controlled System.*.println. > > I believe there is a precedence of using a "Test" log channel in existing > tests that can be used to log debug type info. > > Albert Lee. > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Craig L Russell >wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Michael Dick wrote: > > > > Hi all, > >> > >> In the most recent commit for OPENJPA-1015 (code conventions for > >> testcases) > >> I noticed there are a lot of System.out.println statements in our > >> testcases. > >> > >> > >> Are the printlns really useful to anyone? The only reason I can see for > >> having them is if the testcase requires some manual interpretation to > >> ensure > >> it passes or fails (generally a sign that you need to rewrite the > >> testcase). > >> At best they take up time formatting Strings and writing out to the > >> console > >> all of which is ignored by the build (or builder). > >> > > > > I agree. Thousands of lines of output serve only to hide the real results > > of the tests. I'd like to see all System.out.println removed from the > test > > cases. Replace them with logger.info directed to a file that someone can > > look at if they want to see what happened. But most developers just want > to > > see tests run and mvn tasks succeed. > > > > Craig > > > >> > >> > >> Is there a good and compelling reason why we keep adding these in? > Adding > >> assert() and fail() checks makes sense - but dumping a bunch of diag > info > >> by > >> default seems wasteful to me. > >> > >> -mike > >> > > > > Craig L Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > > > > -- > Albert Lee. > --001e680f1104f0c511046af90979--