Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Correct

On Dec 24, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Alexei Zakharov wrote:

About JUnit and friends. While extracting the pack200 code from the
archive module I've realized that we still have AllTests.java ( junit
test suite files ) in many modules. There is also some related code in
the support/src/test directory. AFAIU it is an old stuff that isn't
used anymore. Please correct me if I wrong. Shouldn't we do something
with it? My assumption is that I don't need to recreate this at least
for the new module since there are modules that currently do *not*
have AllTests. Thoughts?

Thanks,

2006/12/22, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Agreed - they cause no harm and may also be useful for others.

Regards,
Oliver

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> My POV is that people don't have to create them, but if someone put
> one in because for whatever reason, they found it useful, leave it
> alone if it's not getting in the way
>
> geir
>
> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>> Folks,
>> Have we decided anything consistent about having main() method in

>> JUnit tests? I've just created one test. Should I add a main() method?

>>
>> Any decision is better than no decision.
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/06, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That's great, thanks Sveta. Yes, I think this is definitely
>>> something to
>>> add to the main

>>> website eventually - a full set of instructions (expanding the current

>>> links to mail

>>> archives into their complete command lines etc.) would be really useful

>>> for any

>>> first time Harmony developer (and some of us longer lived ones ;) )

>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> Konovalova, Svetlana wrote:
>>> > I've just created the "Running the Classlib Tests" page [1], so
>>> that you
>>> > could share your experience there :)
>>> >

>>> > In the future we could add this stuff to the web-site, let's say,

>>> to the

>>> > testing page [2], where certain package-specific conventions are

>>> > proposed, but nothing is said about JUnit tests.
>>> > What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/RunningTheClasslibTests

>>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/ testing.html

>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > Sveta
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:32 PM
>>> > To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Konovalova, Svetlana wrote:
>>> >

>>> >> IMHO we can start collecting info about running the classlib tests.

>>> >> I suggest to create a new wiki page, let's say, "Running The
>>> Classlib

>>> >> Tests" and add a link to it front the wiki front page > components >

>>> >> class library.
>>> >> ASA we get the clear picture of this issue and verify all the
>>> ways to
>>> >> run tests, we'll be able to post this info on the web-site.
>>> >> Want do you think?
>>> >> I'd be glad to help.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> Sveta
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:25 PM
>>> >> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>> >> Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices
>>> >>

>>> >> +1 for having the doc. But personally I don't know the way how to

>>> run

>>> >> tests from the particular test class (not to speak of individual

>>> test

>>> >> methods) using the current build system. So I don't really know what >>> >> exactly should be copy/pasted. Or you was talking about by- hand

>>> test
>>> >> invocation cmd mentioned above?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> 2006/12/5, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> >>

>>> >>> Agree! When I tried harmony on some applications, I found it is

>>> very

>>> >>> hard to run the test of application mainly because there is no >>> >>> instruction for that at all. So I think it is also not very easy

>>> for
>>> >>> user who have interest to run tests of harmony. And a good
>>> >>>
>>> > instruction
>>> >

>>> >>> may be good for having many user's help to run harmony tests on

>>> >>> various platforms.
>>> >>>

>>> >>> On 12/4/06, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> >>>

>>> >>>> Perhaps some kind of "How To Run The Classlib Tests" section on >>> >>>> the website would be useful? (Assuming there isn't already one

>>> with

>>> >>>> this information in) Then none of us would have to remember - it

>>> >>>> would be right there to copy/paste :)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Regards,
>>> >>>> Oliver
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ivan Popov 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.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 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?

--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD