portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott T Weaver" <scotts-jetspeed-l...@binary-designs.net>
Subject RE: [jira] Created: (JS2-309) Improve and streamline testcase development in Jetspeed
Date Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:44:24 GMT
Randy,

Honestly, I feel having all these individual Spring configs around in our
test cases just adds more to source management issues.  Internally here, we
did away with using Spring configs in our tests and it just seems like
things are more manageable, but that is just me.  For me, I like to be able
to look at a test case and see everything it takes to assemble the
components related to that test.  Having an additional config file just
seems to be one more thing I have to deal with when coding my tests.

Again, if you feel this is a step backwards, I won't argue about reverting
back.

Ragrads,
-Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott T Weaver [mailto:scotts-jetspeed-list@binary-designs.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 5:34 PM
> To: 'Jetspeed Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [jira] Created: (JS2-309) Improve and streamline testcase
> development in Jetspeed
> 
> Randy,
> 
> Well, if you feel this is a step backwards, go ahead and revert to the
> original test cases.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Watler [mailto:watler@wispertel.net]
> > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 5:25 PM
> > To: Jetspeed Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (JS2-309) Improve and streamline testcase
> > development in Jetspeed
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > Hmmmmm. I think my productivity was increased by using Spring. I
> > understand their point, but
> > when layering components it seems that using Spring to assemble the test
> > as it would be in a
> > final configuration seems like the way to go. I agree that starting up
> > the whole J2EE container
> > would be overkill and bad from a testing POV, but using it to setup one
> > or two associated
> > components seems valid.
> >
> > Anyway, are you planning on converting the existing tests, (i.e.
> > portal-site or profiler)?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > Scott T Weaver wrote:
> >
> > >Randy,
> > >
> > >Here is some info on the logic behind this.  However, it is no problem
> to
> > >revert back to the Spring configured test cases.
> > >
> > >http://www.springframework.org/docs/reference/testing.html#unit-testing
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Randy Watler [mailto:watler@wispertel.net]
> > >>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 4:37 PM
> > >>To: Jetspeed Developers List
> > >>Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (JS2-309) Improve and streamline testcase
> > >>development in Jetspeed
> > >>
> > >>Scott,
> > >>
> > >>Why do people recommend not using Spring to setup testcases? This
> seems
> > >>odd to me... i just used Spring to setup the portal-site testcase
> > >>precisely because I did not want to setup all of the PageManager stuff
> > >>in my testcase code. Is this simply a performance thing or what?
> > >>
> > >>Randy
> > >>
> > >>Scott T Weaver (JIRA) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Improve and streamline testcase development in Jetspeed
> > >>>-------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>>        Key: JS2-309
> > >>>        URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JS2-309
> > >>>    Project: Jetspeed 2
> > >>>       Type: Improvement
> > >>> Components: Testing
> > >>>   Versions: 2.0-M4
> > >>>   Reporter: Scott T Weaver
> > >>>Assigned to: Scott T Weaver
> > >>>    Fix For: 2.0-M4, 2.0-FINAL
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>I want to make it easier on us to write high-performance test cases
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>against Jetspeed components.  Currently we rely on sections of and in
> > some
> > >>cases the entire Jetspeed Spring engine to initialize and run our
> tests.
> > >>I have read articles advising * NOT * to use this approach inside your
> > >>test cases and that you should hand-assemble the components within the
> > >>test cases themselves.  We also have some clunky test case inheritance
> > >>hierarchies (I will take the blame for that) that initialize more than
> > we
> > >>need in most cases.  What I am doing to solve this is to, instead of
> > using
> > >>abstract test cases, put together small set "TestHelper" components
> that
> > >>have there own setUp(0 and tearDown() methods that perform specific
> > >>functions such as initialize a datasource pool and properly
> initializing
> > >>OJB, etc.  The datasource and OJB helpers are already in place and I
> > have
> > >>them working in the registry tests with very little change to the test
> > >>cases themselves.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org


Mime
View raw message