tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "kelvin goodson" <kelvingood...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when classes don't inherit from TestCase
Date Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:05:13 GMT
Thanks for this Andy,  I'll play with it tomorrow.

Regards, Kelvin.

On 16/04/07, Andy Grove <grove@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
>
> I believe you just need to annotate the setUp method with @Before. This
> is described in the junit cookbook, here:
>
> http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/cookbook/cookbook.htm
>
> I'm currently working on submitting some more XSD test cases in the CTS
> so I'll try this method out. Hopefully I can then remove the current
> dependency on TestCase in those tests.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kelvingoodson@gmail.com [mailto:kelvingoodson@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of kelvin goodson
> Sent: 16 April 2007 14:42
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Cc: Robbie Minshall
> Subject: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when classes
> don't inherit from TestCase
>
> Hi,
> I'm looking at doing some work in the CTS. I was looking back at
> Robbie's attached description about how to keep the tests "harness
> agnostic".  I'm assuming that this is still a goal of the CTS although I
> may have missed something in my catching up. In my quest to make the CTS
> better I note that a number of the test case classes still extend the
> junit TestCase class.
> This is true for all test classes that have a setUp() method. One that
> doesn't inherit from TestCase is XSDSerializationTest,  and adding a
> setUp method to this class doesn't cause junit to invoke it in my
> eclipse environment. I'm trying to work out whether I should I expect a
> 4.1environment to discover and execute the setUp method when junit is
> used in this way. I seem to have Eclipse junit plugins for 3.8.1 and
> 4.1.0.1 and the preferences tab for Junit doesn't seem to offer much in
> the way of configuration, so I can't be sure I'm using 4.1 behaviour.
>
> I really would like to be XSDSerializationTests to execute setUp so that
> we can have a fresh HelperContext per test,  and I guess the easy way
> out is to make the test class inherit from TestCase like the others,
> but I'd prefer not to introduce the explicit dependency on Junit if I
> can avoid it.
>
> Regards Kelvin.
>
>
> On 07/12/06, Robbie Minshall <mykiwi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This sounds quite good.
> >
> > I have written some test cases with Brian Murray which I would be
> > happy to contribute to tuscany.  Identifying duplication and
> > differences in similar tests would probably be an intersting excercise
> right off the bat.
> >
> > One decision that we spent a little time mulling over was the
> > framework to use for our test suite.  Originally we used the much
> > loved junit harness which worked well.  Different runtimes ( command
> > line, J2EE Application Server, a Service Container ) have different
> classloader hierarchies etc.
> > Without many modifications to the junit code it was difficult and
> > quite ugly testing SDO within the context of a variety of runtimes
> > which the SDO APIs will be used.
> >
> > We took the approach of writing general test libraries which can then
> > simply be called from a variety of test frameworks such as junit or a
> > simple J2EE or SCA Application test harness.  I like this approach for
>
> > keeping the actual test code very simple, allowing for integration a
> > variety of test frameworks, and providing ability to test directly
> > within the different runtimes people care about.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this ?
> >
> > Robbie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/1/06, kelvin goodson <kelvingoodson@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Andy,
> > >   please attach them to the JIRA for this work and one of us can
> > > pick them up, thanks.
> > > Best Regards, Kelvin.
> > >
> > > On 01/12/06, Andy Grove (Contractor) <grove@roguewave.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dan,
> > > >
> > > > I was previously working with Kelvin Goodson to donate some junit
> > > tests
> > > > on behalf of Rogue Wave Software.
> > > >
> > > > These tests are written purely to the SDO API and I have validated
> > > that
> > > > the tests do run against Tuscany as well as Rogue Wave's
> > > implementation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should I send the tests to Kelvin?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Andy.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dan Murphy [mailto:dm.subs@googlemail.com ]
> > > > Sent: 30 November 2006 17:44
> > > > To: Tuscany Developers; Tuscany Users
> > > > Subject: Proposal for a (Java) community test suite for SDO
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose starting a community test suite for
> > > > service
> > > data
> > > > objects (SDO CTS) implementations written in Java. Based on
> > > > feedback from an earlier post this seems to be the first logical
> > > > step in getting interoperable SDO implementations in all
> > > > languages. I can see this leading to an interoperability test
> > > > suite to check serialisation between implementations also works
> > > > (across languages and implementations).
> > > >
> > > > Proposal for Community Test Suite (CTS) for SDO Develop a test
> > > > suite to validate an SDO implementation behaves as expected,
> > > > according to the community's understanding of the SDO
> specification.
> > > > Should
> > > > the specification appear ambiguous or unclear then the community
> > > > will decide what to do; it may decide to test the area with an
> > > > agreed expected behaviour, or decide not to test this area.
> > > > Ambiguities will be fed
> > > back
> > > > to
> > > > the specification group for clarification. Although we will run
> > > > this against Tuscany, the test suite will only test things that we
>
> > > > think any implementation should support.
> > > >
> > > > The SDO CTS will enable developers to choose or switch SDO
> > > > implementations without the concern of having to re-code a
> > > > significant proportion of their application due to differences
> > > > between implementations. This community test suite will first
> > > > focus on areas identified important to developers of
> > >
> > > > SDO
> > > > applications. SDO users feedback and involvement will be crucial
> > > > to
> > > the
> > > > success of this effort. Over time this may grow to include a large
>
> > > > proportion of the SDO specification, however the suite should grow
>
> > > > according to the community's desire, rather than attempting to be
> > > > a validation
> > > or
> > > > compliancy suite.
> > > >
> > > > To encourage everyone with an interest in SDO to contribute and
> > > > use
> > > the
> > > > suite, I propose we :
> > > >
> > > >    1. Create a separate module in SVN to separate this from
> Tuscany
> > > >    components and testcases.
> > > >    2. Make use of a java package namespace that is not
> attributable to
> > > >    either Tuscany or any other SDO implementation: test.sdo
> > > >    3. Refactor some of the existing Tuscany SDO Java test cases to
>
> > > > remove
> > > >    any Tuscany specific coding and re-package these to the
> test.sdo
> > > >    namespace.
> > > >    4. Accept tests from anyone who wishes to contribute them under
>
> > > > normal
> > > >    Apache contribution conditions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SDO users involvement will be crucial to this effort, developers
> > > > of
> > > SDO
> > > > implementations will benefit by contributing to and consuming a
> > > > community test suite, rather than working on their own.
> > > >
> > > > Who's up for working on this with me ?
> > > >
> > > > If you are interested in joining this effort; have any concerns,
> > > > comments or suggestions please append them...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance to all those who volunteer :) Dan
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > * * * Charlie * * *
> > Check out some pics of little Charlie at
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/83388211@N00/sets/
> >
> > Check out Charlie's al crapo blog at
> > http://robbieminshall.blogspot.com
> >
> > * * * Addresss * * *
> > 1914 Overland Drive
> > Chapel Hill
> > NC 27517
> >
> > * * * Number * * *
> > 919-225-1553
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message