[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-918?page=comments#action_12365729 ]
Kristian Waagan commented on DERBY-918:
---------------------------------------
(Sorry for accidentally finding a keyboard shortcut that submitted the comment
before I was finished...)
I have one comment related to the patch, or actually a comment in the patch:
else if (testType.equals("junit"))
{
System.out.println("JUnit tests not implemented yet with
useprocess=false");
System.exit(1);
// This does not compile since JUnit is not in the CLASSPATH
//junit.textui.TestRunner.run
//(new junit.framework.TestSuite(Class.forName(javaPath + "." +
testBase)));
}
If we use the way described in the comment to start the test, it will differ
from how we do it when useprocess=true. When we start the testrunner from the
command line, it will use the method 'BaseTestRunner.getTest', which uses
reflection to call the test class' 'suite' method. The way described by the
comment will also use reflection, but it will get a list of all methods in the
test class and find those that starts with 'test'.
The latter case would cause any test setup done/initiated from 'suite' to be
skipped. I have observed on the developer list that we have talked about using
a test decorator, like 'TestSetup', to create a common test setup/environment
for the tests in the suite (or test class). 'suite' could also possibly skip
one or more test methods that is known to fail, but these would be included in
the latter case.
I know this is a little ahead of time, but I would rather see the comment
deleted, to make sure we don't simply uncomment it later and expect things to
work as before.
> introduce a new test type to run junit tests from the current harness
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-918
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-918
> Project: Derby
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Test
> Environment: All
> Reporter: Andreas Korneliussen
> Assignee: Andreas Korneliussen
> Attachments: DERBY-918.diff, DERBY-918.stat
>
> 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)
> Then you can use:
> java org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.harness.RunTest
> <TestCaseClassName>.junit
> to run a Junit test - instead of:
> java org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.harness.RunTest
> <AnotherClassWithMainMethod>.java
> When starting a test of type junit, the RunTest class may simply use the
> junit.textui.TestRunner class, which has a main method which takes a TestCase
> class name as parameter. The junit.textui.TestRunner runs the tests defined
> by the suite() method of the TestCase class.
> I think this strategy will make it easier to integrate new JUnit tests into
> the current test suites, since it save you the trouble of creating a java
> class with a main method for every test.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
