river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: Hudson build is back to normal : River-trunk-QA #51
Date Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:29:30 GMT
On 11/5/2010 10:59 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Jonathan Costers wrote:
...
>> Maybe we can migrate the valuable tests in that jtreg suite to either
>> JUnit
>> or QA tests? I am aware there are caveats (test isolation level for
>> instance), but they seem to be manageable. I'm talking about a gradual
>> process here, converting test after test over a long period of time.
>> We are
>> talking about around 100 jtreg tests, with varying complexity and
>> isolation
>> levels.
>
> Well I don't think Junit would be suitable, since multiple jvm's are
> employed. I've also had to modify some jtreg tests that made some
> assumptions about ClassLoader visibility (jre/lib/ext related) and
> failed later when we made some changes. The qa suite might be suitable,
> but I don't think the effort's worthwhile, we can't guarantee that we're
> simulating the failure conditions properly, even if only a few of us run
> these tests, it's better than everyone running them if they're not
> genuinely simulating failure conditions.
...

Yes, needing multiple JVMs seems like a good reason for using the QA
framework.

If I were doing this sort of test migration, I would test the test by
modifying the code under test to introduce the bug it is testing for,
and consider the operation complete only when the test detects and
reports it.

Patricia

Mime
View raw message