If anyone's curious, here are the JUnit 4.4 release notes that have a good summary of the new stuff - assertThat/Matchers, assumptions and theories.
http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/ReleaseNotes4.4.html On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I remember my two years old experiments with TestNG - it > groups all Junit tests (say from all classlib modules) into the one > group while running in JUnit compatibility mode. So the reports > produced by JuntReport didn't look very nice. By the way, I remember > there was some old contribution about xml-based exclude lists for > JUnit that allowed fine-grained (method-based) control over the test > execution. I don't remember exact JIRA number. However, we may search > for it. It was from George Harley. > > Regards, > Alexei > > 2008/6/16, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 13/06/2008, 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. > > > > > > > > My point was that for Eclipse users it would be an extra step to download > > the TestNG plug-in, where as the JUnit plugin already comes with > Eclipse. I > > realise that this isn't the biggest consideration, but I feel that our > setup > > is already quite complex so I thought it would be worth mentioning. I > would > > assume that switching to JUnit 4 would not require any extra steps > because > > Eclipse already has support for it embedded. > > > > > > 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. > > > 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 :) > > > > > > > > I think it would be good to be able to reduce the exclude list to just > > contain individual methods and keep track of it a bit better, although I > > think some of this can be achieved with JUnit and using different > folders. > > I agree the TestNG solution seems neater and more flexible, I'm just not > > convinced yet that the benefit we would be getting is worth the cost to > > upgrade. I'm also wondering about the overhead for developers. E.g am > I > > going to have to add four different annotations to every new test I > write in > > the TestNG system? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards > > > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu > > > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sian > > > > > > -- > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > > 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > 3AU > > >
