Let me clarify my point a bit - I don't think we should remove main() from all tests now having (-1) people aboard. This is not a big deal anyway compared to 96 open JIRA issues on Swing.
On 11/29/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Hindess wrote: > On 29 November 2006 at 20:34, "Ivan Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Alexei, >> >> I agree that it is still possible to run JUnit tests from command line >> even without having main() in the code. But I think it is easier to >> run test by convenient way >> >> $ java -cp junit.jar TestClass >> >> rather than in a more complex manner >> >> $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass >> >> Actually, I constantly forget the right spelling of the full class >> name for TestRunner class and have to look into JUnit doc to specify >> proper name for such a command line. >> >> Also, it would be inconvenient if >> someone runs test from an IDE that does not support JUnit environment, >> but launches test as a usual Java application. >> >> I don't insist on adding main() to each JUnit testcase, but I see no >> reason for removing this functionality from those test where it >> already exists. >> > > Whatever we do, main() should either be in all tests or none. Having it > in only a subset is *much* too confusing. > > I don't care if we have main() in testcases or not. (I personally will > never use it and don't find remembering[0] the junit test runner class.) > +1 to keep a consistent style. > Regards, > Mark. > > [0] I remember it by writing it in a shell script because I have a > terrible memory. > Thanks. > Ivan > > On 11/29/06, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Ivan, Stepan, >>> >>> I personally set +1 for removing main() method. Any script or command >>> line can be trivially modified to launch JUnit tests without main() >>> method: one should just add junit.textui.TestRunner class before a >>> test class name. >>> >>> $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass >>> >>> I'm writing this trivial thing here because during our work on class >>> library test enabling it was FAQ N1 for all C/C++ developers. >>> >>> Note, any JUnit test won't work without junit.jar anyway. If you have >>> junit.jar, you have a standard test runner, which is also quite >>> lightweight. >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Alexei >>> >>> On 11/29/06, Ivan Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> -1 for removing main(). >>>> >>>> I often run individual tests from command line or using scripts and >>>> it's easier to launch them as a usual Java application. Also, this >>>> facilitates creating separate bundle with test to attach to a bug >>>> report or send to other people, who can just run it from command line >>>> or use script with the all required options already specified, instead >>>> of setting IDE for this test. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> On 11/29/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a large amount of inconsistency across the tests and I'd like >>>>> to lobby for cleaning them up as much as possible. I'm of the opinion >>>>> that test code should be clean, simple and transparent. Here are some >>>>> of the more noticeable items that I'd like to cleanup. >>>>> >>>>> * Empty setUp/teardown methods - There are a number of tests that >>>>> override setUp and/or teardown methods, but are either empty or just >>>>> call the super implementation. >>>>> >>>>> * Singleton suite methods - There are some tests that contain a static >>>>> "suite" method that creates a TestSuite and adds one test (the test >>>>> class it's declared in). Are there any practical uses for these >>>>> methods? TestSuites are for grouping together tests to treat them as >>>>> one unit. Since these suites are just one test, it doesn't seem to >>>>> provide much value. >>>>> >>>>> * main method launching text runner - There are some tests that >>>>> contain "main" methods which run the enclosing test via a JUnit text >>>>> runner. Most IDEs have built-in support for JUnit and can launch any >>>>> test arbitrarily and Ant can do the same thing. Does anyone launch >>>>> tests via these methods? >>>>> >>>>> My proposal would be to clean up these inconsistencies by eliminating >>>>> them, but what does everyone else think? >>>>> >>>>> -Nathan >>>>> >>>>> > > > > -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM
-- Thank you, Alexei
