Andreas Korneliussen wrote: > It seems to me that for including a new JUnit test into i.e derby-all we > need to make a new java class with a main() method, which parses a > command line and set up the testsuite and run it, just like any java > program. Basically we are running the junit tests as test type "java". > > Instead of having to do this for every junit test going into a derby > test suite, I would propose a different strategy. > > I propose to introduce a new test type called "junit" (current test > types are: sql,sql2,unit,java,multi,demo - unit is not junit) <snip>
Sounds good. Is there any write up of the correct way to write new Junit tests? I think a big mistake we made with the old harness was no formal way to add Java tests, which meant multiple ways to start the engine and obtain the connection and multiple utility methods (almost) performing the same action. Would be nice if there were guidelines provided by whoever set up the initial Junit framework. It would also be great if there was some documentation on how the tests are expected to run. Looking at DerbyJUnitTest I can't understand why there is static state, such as _databaseName, I though Junit tests were objects? Dan.
