On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/12 Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This is slightly off track, but my concern about TestNG is that there are > > already quite a lot of steps for someone new to Harmony to get the source > > code and run the tests (both for the whole of Harmony and for a single > class > > library module). Certainly for Eclipse users if we switched to TestNG > this > > would add another step, although I'm not sure about command-line users. > > > > The cost to make use of current tests is low, IMHO. > I have mentioned that we can add TestNG target to replace Junit target. > From the command-line users' perspective, they still use the same > command to run the test. > The only difference would be the command will invoke TestNG to run our > test. > For Eclipse users, they can adopt plug-in for TestNG, it is quite the > same as plug-in for junit. > So I think we can migration to TestNG smoothly for the user. > What's more, they can pick up their desired tests more conveniently. > > For test developers, on the other hand, it is a little complex. > But we want to upgrade to a new tool, no matter Junit 4 or TestNG, we > need to pay for it.Their efforts are similar. Actually, we can use JUnit 4 now. If you run with Ant 1.7 and put the JUnit 4 library that's in the dependency download already into your Ant classpath, JUnit 4 tests will run. You can even mix JUnit 3 and 4 tests in the same run and it works fine, so new test classes can be built at JUnit 4 tests without having to update any existing test code. You can even use some of the minimal built-in hamcrest matchers, as they are part of the JUnit 4.4 JAR. -Nathan > > For TestNG, we need add annotations for each testcase, classify them > to right groups. > The good news is we still can use original assert* as before since > TestNG include JUnit's Assert class. > As Nathan mentioned , we can use hamcrest as well if we want. > > > > > Of course if switching to TestNG solves some really major problems then > it > > would probably be worth it, but the only thing I can see that it gives us > > over JUnit 4 is being able to run different sets of tests on different > OS's > > and to me that doesn't seem as important as having a project that's easy > to > > access. Just my 2p worth... > > > > We can replace the exclude files to get a more accurate tracking for > failed test. > We can tell difference between public API tests and harmony specific > implementation tests . > We can archive all tests together into a jar. > I think there should be other benefits as well :) > > > -- > Best Regards > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu > > China Software Development Lab, IBM >
