Hi Josef, Please check out my comments in the below mail.
-- Willem Jiang Red Hat, Inc. Web: http://www.redhat.com Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On April 17, 2015 at 6:01:09 PM, Josef Karasek (karasek.j...@gmail.com) wrote: > The runner is nearly complete, before issuing a pull request, I'd like to > discuss a few ideas and also write some more tests. > I added short readme to my forked mirror of Camel so anyone who is willing > to participate in this discussion can quickly > see what's going on. > https://github.com/josefkarasek/camel/tree/CAMEL-6070/components/camel-test > > Also thanks to Williem Jiang, the camel-test-spring has been great source. > I tried to be consistent with the naming schema > defined there. > > So here are few points, that I'd like to here opinion of someone else than > just me: > 1. Names of annotations and packages I think we can put the new added class into junit4, few people wants to use JUnit version below then 4.6 now days. > > 2. In package test4 is abstract class TestSupport.java, that defines some > static methods useful for testing (deleteDirectory > and many asserts). Since they're static, it's possible to us them even > from abstract class. My idea how to provide cleaner > way is to define new class, that will no longer be a subclass of JUnit's > Assert class (because it's not necessary any more), > will not be abstract and will facilitate only static methods. This way > you don't inherently import the whole Assert class to > every test, in stead you just use static imports of only what you need > in the test. > I think we can just keep the code there, when user extends the TestSupport which inherent from Assert could save user some time to do the static imports. I don’t think it add But I’m open to find a good way to share the static method of testing such as deleteDirectory, etc. > 3. Check method annotations > (https://github.com/josefkarasek/camel/tree/CAMEL-6070/components/camel-test#2-method-annotations) > > Currently those methods must not be static. If you check > camel-test-spring, annotated methods are static there. > The idea is that in JUnit static methods are called only once per test > class and non-static for every @Test method. > But unless CamelContext is created only once per test class every of the > annotated methods must be called for every > @Test, so their return values can be registered to the CamelContext - > that's why I implemented it this way. Your opinio > is welcome. I think it’s fine. > > 4. Is it a good idea to leave all method annotations to be optional? Simply > if user defines a method that returns RouteBuilder > and doesn't annotate it with @CreateRouteBuilder, it's still possible to > detect this method and invoke it. Only thing that > is affected by this design decision is readability of the code (and of > course one line of code per method…). I think we should treat the @CreateRouteBuilder as the @Test annotation in JUnit4, if the user doesn’t specify it when the @UseRouteBuilder is not false, the runner should complain about it. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Would-like-to-work-on-CAMEL-6070-tp5763192p5765921.html > > Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
