poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominik Stadler <dominik.stad...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: Detecting when ignored unit tests pass
Date Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:01:38 GMT
Hi,

I think this approach should work fine.

Dominik.

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Javen O'Neal <javenoneal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's a working example of what I was talking about. This will break
> the build as soon as the bug is patched (prompting a unit test
> update). Because this unit test is run, any side-effects it has also
> occur, which differs from not running the unit test altogether. In
> this case, the side effect is modifying
> /test-data/slideshow/SampleShow.pptx.
>
>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/poi/trunk/src/ooxml/testcases/org/apache/poi/xslf/usermodel/TestXSLFSlideShowFactory.java?r1=1722707&r2=1722706&pathrev=1722707
>
> public final class TestXSLFSlideShowFactory extends
> BaseTestSlideShowFactory {
>     private static final String removeExpectedExceptionMsg =
>             "This functionality this unit test is trying to test is
> now passing. " +
>             "The unit test needs to be updated by deleting the
> expected exception code. Status and close any related bugs.";
>
>     @Rule
>     public ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();
>
>     @Test
>     public void testFactoryFromFile() throws Exception {
>         // Remove thrown.* when bug 58779 is resolved
>         thrown.expect(AssertionError.class);
>         thrown.expectMessage("SampleShow.pptx sample file was modified
> as a result of closing the slideshow");
>         thrown.reportMissingExceptionWithMessage("Bug 58779: " +
> removeExpectedExceptionMsg);
>
>         testFactoryFromFile(filename);
>     }
> }
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Javen O'Neal <javenoneal@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Dominik Stadler <dominik.stadler@gmx.at>
> wrote:
> >> Adding a test-suite which looks at bugzilla will cause additional
> >> web-accesses during CI runs and might cause unstability if bugzilla is
> >> down/unreachable/flaky or changes web-address (just happened a year
> >> ago!)... I saw this being used locally at my company but am not sure if
> it
> >> is a good idea for an open source project where code is built all over
> the
> >> place.
> >
> > I was thinking of mentioning the bug number in the error message, but
> > assume the user will figure out what the bug URL is and change the
> > status as needed. No need to integrate bugzilla with the test suite.
> > Unit tests should be able to be run without an internet connection. If
> > the test is named something like "test12345" or "bug12345", someone
> > might be able to figure out what this is about--but we need to be
> > crystal clear that if the test breaks, it's because the broken feature
> > now works as expected, not because a working feature broke, and to fix
> > the unit test rather than the Java code.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>

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