Huge +1 to this.

The two categories I care most about are:

1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under test";
today this is NeedsRunner.
2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is
RunnableOnService.

Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we can
make good choices, like we already do.

The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a pitfall:
what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not have a
clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names.

So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make clear
that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want
RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules.

See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at case
2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one added.

*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit

Kenn

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Generally speaking, I agree.
>
> As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or @RunOnRunner
> sound clearer.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having
>> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very
>> intuitive
>> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight
>> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to run
>> on a service.
>>
>> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have
>> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to
>> runner.
>> Currently, I have two names in my head:
>>
>> - TestsWithRunners
>> - RunnerExecutable
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Reply via email to