river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Hudson build is back to normal : River-trunk-QA #51
Date Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:44:39 GMT
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 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

Hmm, yes that would be the only way to do it.



View raw message