> -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: mercredi 28 décembre 2005 20:44 > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: [discussion] Integration testing location > > I worry a bit about mixing unit and integration tests generally... > > maybe we have the recommended case for them go into > src/integration-test/java or something along those lines... > > logically the structure src/test/java and src/test/it doesn't do it for me > since it tests are probably written in java anyway, so that kinda breaks > the > spirit of 'src'/'type'/'language' convention we kind of have going..
Right. I hadn't seen it this way (I thought src/test was for all tests and that src/main was for all runtime sources) but I think you're right. I'm fine with src/it/java. > as for the rest of it, I like adding the phases... Sure but there's a very common use case for integration testing: the need to have environment setup before the test and to clean it after the tests. Of course you could write all sort of plugin to that the plugin support doing this itself but then you're no longer flexible and you're not providing a solution to lots of other use cases. For example cargo could define a cargo:test goal which would start the container, run the tests and stop the containers. But this doesn't lead to all variations like: - the user simply wants to redeploy the new artifacts in the container but not start the container again - the user want to have his/her tests written using tetstng and not junit (or any other test framework) It's not modular at all (and btw encourages duplication of code - between surefire and cargo if cargo implemented a cargo:test goal). > I remember the last time > we talked about this there was a bit of concern that arose based on 'where > do we stop?' in supporting different testing strategies...integration > tests > make sense to support in the lifecycle, but should integration tests > embody > the deployment of a generated ear and automated tests against a container > started by the build system? or the running of tests generated by > something > like the axistools plugin that can reach out and test > connectivity/functionality for a webservices client? I think there was > general consensus on the integration testing phase, but some question on > the > later type of testing...and I think the formalization of the integration > testing into maven then was delayed to consider if these other types of > testing might prompt some reworking of the existing framework... > > there, I think I captured the jist of that discussion, it was on irc a few > months ago.. Thanks -Vincent ___________________________________________________________________________ Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
