We already have a impassioned debate for these two cadidate[1]. IMHO, TestNG is more rounded and powful. It seems that TestNG has more features that Junit don't[2].
For Hamcrest assert, it is interesting and should valueable to us. I think there is no doubt that we could include them with TestNG. It should be a independent library. (Corrent me if i was wrong) [1] http://markmail.org/message/w25yywlbjeicvhhe [2] http://lijinjoseji.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/testng-56-and-junit-44-which-framework-you-will-choose-for-unit-testing/ 2008/6/6 Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That discussion was a very long time ago. Is there still value in TestNG? > I'd prefer to move to JUnit 4.4. All of our current tests will continue to > work and new tests can be implemented using the latest conventions and older > tests can be updated as we get to them. JUnit 4.4 is a far cry from 4.0. > > Here's the things I think would be create for our use and testing in general > - Matchers and the 'assertThat' - much more readable code and readable > failure messages > - Assumptions and the 'assumeThat' - allows methods to add statements that > guarantee that preconditions for the test are correct; this allows tests to > fail such that you know it's an environment issue and not an actual test > failure > > If you're not familiar with matchers, check out this quick tutorial - > http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/wiki/Tutorial. > > -Nathan > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, all. >> >> We had discussed the migration to testNG before and got some conclusions >> for >> grouping[1] >> including how to deal with boot path test[2]. Am i missing something? >> Is it still in our schedule? I think it's valueable to Harmony. >> I volunteer to carry out this job if no one objects. Any other volunteers? >> >> IMHO, we can only add some ant tasks to integrate testng at the beginning. >> So our original junit tests can still work at the mean time when migrating. >> When one module's migration task is finished, we can judge the result >> to dertermine whether we should go on for other modules. >> >> Maybe we can create a branch for luni to start this work, shall we? >> therefore there won't be any impact on other's development. >> Once it is completed in the branch, we could merge it back to our trunk. >> Does it make sense? >> >> Any sugestions or comments are welcomed. Thanks very much. >> >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention >> [2] >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg12413.html >> [3] http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#annotations >> -- >> Best Regards >> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu >> China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > -- Best Regards Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu China Software Development Lab, IBM
