Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'll check this diff, but one quick comment: a lot of these diffs look
>>like formatting diffs. Shouldn't we be using the 10.2 canons even if we
>>are using applications built against 10.1?
>>
>>
>
>No. Think of the 10.1 tests as an existing customer application. Any
>changes seen by the tests may also be seen by real customer
>applications. I'm suprised there were that many failures, though I
>haven't seen the breakdown. I could see the addition of SQLStates for
>client messages would make a number of tests fail.
>
>
>
>
I posted a proposal earlier on this thread regarding how to possiblly
automate this testing for java based tests and would appreciate your
input. This proposal offers no solution for .sql tests, which present
a large number of diffs, but my thought is that moving forward we will
be moving mostly to java assertion based testing.
http://www.mail-archive.com/derby-dev@db.apache.org/msg12668.html
In the context of the JUnit discussion, I was thinking that instead of
BehaviourChecker the class be called ConnectionEnv so it can
potentially be expanded to include JVM based logic as well. So your
test would have somthing like:
import org.apache.derby.functionTests.util.ConnectionEnv;
ConnectionEnv connenv = new ConnectionEnv(conn);
if (connenv.supportsXXX())
......
in ConnectionEnv, supportsXXX() will make the decision based on
driver, database version, driver version, jvm etc.
Kathey
