river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zsolt Kúti <la.ti...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: test framework migration
Date Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:05:33 GMT
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:38:06 -0500
"Christopher Dolan" <christopher.dolan@avid.com> wrote:

> While useful, I recommend against that feature in general.
> Philosophically, it's bad practice to connect the unit tests -- they
> should be as simple as possible and stand alone.  Technologically,
> when the first test fails, then the second one fails with a really
> obscure error.  I can't remember the specifics, but it was bad enough
> to convince me to rewrite all of my "dependsOnMethod" tests.

I agree in general :-)
In some cases test setup can take long or a resource cannot be reused
quickly enough and (test) class level setup is in order. For the former
doing an exhaustive testing of database functionality can be an
example. I also had a case involving extended XML trees for which
initializations would have been cumbersome and would have made more
hardly followable code. (Admittedly it is still a trade-off considering
the brittleness you mention.) For the latter I have only a gut feeling
that some use of the resources by River might fall into that category.


Ps.: It should be noted that TestNG runs test cases parallely by

View raw message