On 1/24/06, Kristian Waagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> Hi, Kristian, thanks for your questions. My one overriding thought is
> we should take this in incremental steps -- do all of these questions
> need to be answered before we can rewrite a single old canon-based test
> to a JUnit test? Can some of these questions be deferred?
Yes, they can be deferred. I did not intend to say that we should try to
fix/implement all issues/features at in one step.
My main point of concern, is that it is too hard to write JUnit tests
now, because there is so little information available. Just have a look
at the number of JUnit tests that have been added to the repository - it
sure ain't many! The conversion process, which I understand is fully
based on "it's my itch" initiatives, is also moving along very, very slowly.
+1 - I have now written some derby jUnit tests myself and I agree that it may not be that obvious from the beginning (different paradigm from canon-based tests) - I used jUnit before so it did help. I'm currently scratching a few itches but I'd be glad to post some instructions unless some itch-scratching idle volunteer want to take into that heroic task ;-) - jUnit aims at making unit testing easier and more effective therefore we just need to make the Derby jUnit adoption easier and more effective ;-)
