As far as I understand in spite of the fact there were no TestNG-related discussions since 2006 the problem is still relevant. There are big exclude lists in some classlib modules still, and many tests are excluded only because of a couple of failing methods. Frankly speaking I'm not familiar with new feature introduced in Junit 4.4. Are there any enhancements that can help to resolve this exclude-whole-class-because-of-one-bad-method issue?
Thanks, Alexei 2008/6/11, Regis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Nathan Beyer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Regis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Matcher and Assumptions are great ideas! Thanks Nathan. > > > They would be very helpful for our new test cases. But I notice that > > > Junit 4.4 doesn't support group which is very important feature for > > > both old tests and new tests. We can partition our test suite and run > > > them separately. It's make our tests more flexible and configurable, > > > and it's the main reason we discuss to migrate to TestNG long time ago. > > > > > > > > > Don't we partition our tests already? Isn't that what the 'api' and 'impl' > > folders are about? > > > Yes, but it's not enough. We have discussed and created a wiki page[1] about > how > to configuration and group harmony tests. The page is a little old, but I > think the problems > it tried to resolve still exist now. The partitions are not only include > 'api' and 'impl', but also > include partition of different os, architecture, partition of broken tests > and level of tests. > folder structure or exclude files can't help in this complex situation, so > we need some tools > to help us to deal with this, i think TestNG is suitable. If JUnit 4.4 can > do it, i will vote to JUnit, > update to a new version is always easier than switch to a new tool after > all. > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention > > Best Regards, > Regis. > > > > > > -Nathan > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Regis. > > > > > > > > > Nathan Beyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
