river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: test framework migration - was: Re: Hudson build is back to normal
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:20:35 GMT
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