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: test framework migration - was: Re: Hudson build is back to normal
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:05:51 GMT
Thanks Tom, I agree, if someone has a good reason...

Cheers,

Peter.

Tom Hobbs wrote:
> I've written a couple of JUnit tests.
>
> I've not used TestNG for many years so can't really comment on it's
> comparison with JUnit.  I don't object to converting my tests, however
> I'd rather convert them because "TestNG does X which we need to do Y"
> rather than "We should swap to TestNG because it's better."
>
> I agree, this should be an either/or decision.  We should definitely
> *not* be using both.
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>   
>> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>     
>>> Zsolt Kúti wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:40:19 +0100
>>>> Jonathan Costers <jonathan.costers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>         
>>>>> Not all of them use/need a multi VM setup. Those are candidates for
>>>>> JUnit. The others would be QA candidates.
>>>>> I'm not saying it is easy to migrate any of these though, doing so
>>>>> requires knowledge of how the jtreg framework operates, as well as
>>>>> the proposed target framework (JUnit, QA).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> JUnit's good when we're only testing a single object
>>>>>> implementation, we can document and expect people to utilse the qa
>>>>>> suite for more complex tests.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>           
>>>> Hello hard workers,
>>>>
>>>> It would be worth considering the use of TestNG instead of JUnit.
>>>> I have no experience in their comparison, so relied on other
>>>> sources when I was to decid what framework to use (like this:
>>>> http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-vs-testng-comparison/).
>>>> TestNG features that are missing from JUnit can be useful in a complex
>>>> test environment like that of River.
>>>>         
>>> If we were starting cold, with no existing tests, I might be open to this
>>> suggestion. As it is, we already have a QA framework that can do all the
>>> complex, multi-JVM tests, and we have over 1000 existing tests using it.
>>>
>>> I think the objective in converting jtreg tests would be to reduce the
>>> number of frameworks, and the amount of software we need installed, in order
>>> to run a full test. Switching them to TestNG, or anything else other than
>>> JUnit or the River QA framework, would not achieve that.
>>>
>>> Patricia
>>>
>>>       
>> Has anyone else written any junit tests other than myself? If TestNG is
>> justifiably better than Junit, I'd be prepared to convert my tests, I
>> believe many of the annotations are common?
>>
>> But it would have to be Junit OR TestNG, not both.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>>     
>
>   


Mime
View raw message