>>>>> "SB" == Satheesh Bandaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SB> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SB> "KAH" == Knut Anders Hatlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
SB> Hmm, I just discovered, to my surprise and disappointment, that I
SB> am unable to test that this actually works, because
SB> lang/triggerGeneral.sql does not run under DerbyNet or
DerbyNetClient.
SB> Why is that? I assumed, in my naivete, that tests should run in
SB> all three frameworks, unless the test is testing something that is
specific
SB> to a particular framework...
SB> This is the general rule... For tests that verify pure SQL
SB> behavior, the framework shouldn't matter. Many of the
SB> derbyLang tests are meant to test just SQL behavior, so many
SB> just run in embedded framework only. Running these tests in
SB> other frameworks might generate different outputs so may have
SB> to generate different masters. Is there a reason why you would
SB> like your new test to run in all frameworks?
Not really. I just wanted to verify that the
specify-part-of-the-connection-url trick gave me a new and
valid connection even in a different framework.
SB> It seems the behavior is likely to be the same if you
SB> specify a userName in the URL.
I would hope so.
SB> Looking at 'suites' directory is one way. You could also
SB> invoke the tests without actually running them and then see if
SB> your test gets picked up in the framework of your
SB> interest. RunTest has listOnly option.
Sure, that would work. My problem was that after modifying
triggerGeneral.sql I ran it in embedded, and then in DerbyNet and
DerbyNetClient. It worked fine in embedded but failed with in the two
other frameworks. If I had looked at the suites I would have found out
that this particular test is not run with those frameworks. But I
still wasn't sure if the failure was caused by the change that I made, or
if it would have failed anyway.
When running the test I only saw the last part of the diff in my
terminal window. And there I saw the text that I had just added
to the test script, so naturally I assumed that I had broken something.
As it happens I hadn't, but if the test actually had been working in
all frameowks before (even if it wasn't mentioned in the Net-suites),
I would not want to be the one who broke it. That's reasonable isn't
it? Or am I just being paranoid? :)
--
dt
