On 11/28/06, Leo Li wrote:
OK. It will do in exec, but the style is a little different.:)
Sorry, I didn't catch - what "different style" means here? Thanks, Stepan. And I also believe run most tests in one VM will save time.(Actually it
has been quite long currently.) I just want to denote the tests that should run in seperate VM while remaining the style of junit tests except some configurations. (Like something in AOP and without intruding.) On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stepan Mishura wrote: > > On 11/27/06, Leo Li wrote: > >> > >> Hi, all: > >> During fixing the bug of Harmony-2249, I found that the testcase in > >> one > >> junit test file might lead to other fail in a different junit file. > After > >> digging into it, I am aware that testcase can influence the global > state > >> of > >> a VM, for example, the resolution of class (both RI and Harmony have > >> similar > >> behavior). Although I changed the testcase as a workaround, it is not > >> tested so thoroughly as I expected in order not to lead other tests to > >> fail. > > > > > > If a test's execution influence of VM state and this is critical for > other > > test then the test can fork VM (via Support_Exec.execJava()) and do all > > testing in the forked VM. > > +1 -- and this should be the exception, in general tests should put > things back as they found them. exec'ing a new Java is for those cases > where you cannot do that. > > Regards, > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > -- Leo Li China Software Development Lab, IBM
-- Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division
