A few comments/questions on Bill's proposal... The first is, do we want to go with Cactus, Cargo and Ant for this? I don't have a problem with this although we've talked off and on about using Maven for this at some point. Since our biggest Maven guru (James Mitchell) is busy with some other stuff right now I say lets stick with what we know.
One thing I think we should do is check out what Craig and the gang are up to in Shale. They have all of these mock objects, etc that they are using to test Shale. Lets make sure they haven't figured out something already that we could use or easily adapt for our use. There are a lot of extra dependencies but they are only for the build, not the actual usage of myfaces or tomahawk so I don't think that's too big of a deal. One option is a separate target for downloading the dependencies associated with the tests, but that might be a bit much. That does mean, however, that in order to build from the source you are required to supply your own local jars or use download-dependencies and download some jars that you might not have otherwise needed. @Bill, You asked about breaking things with this new build. Here is a good rule of thumb for you to verify this. Do an SVN checkout of myfaces-current and then do a unit-test-all from current/build. Then do clean-all from the same dir (to reset things). Then go to each subproject and build indepedently (but in a logcial order b/c that is still required). So api/build unit-test, share/build unit-test, impl/build unit-test, etc. Also you should probably do the same for dist-all at the top level and then dist at each of the subproject levels. Just to make sure that "one build to rule them all" still applies. I will try the patch shortly when I get some much needed free time. sean On 9/22/05, Enrique Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, a good tutorial on the wiki would be great! > > 2005/9/22, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I believe that there is no problem for us in adding any dependencies > > as long as they are ASL licensed... > > > > If you would write up some stuff on how to get started with testing, > > it would be great - I hope we can then get the other developers > > (including me) to write those tests as well. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 9/22/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > With the TCK behind us (thanks again to all who worked so hard on > > > that) I figured it was a good time to work on getting cactus tests in > > > place. My thinking behind Cactus is that we need to have the ability > > > to do in container testing because some of the mock stuff is just too > > > tedious. As background info I've been working on bug # 233 (empty > > > date for inputCalendar) and its just too complex to test all the > > > cases with mocks because of the amount of code that must be written > > > to setup the mock env. > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > Good to hear that. Developing my own components I also have the problems > > > > > > of testing. If we all join forces and know how on that, we can come up > > > with a sample of testing components... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > So I set out to get a cactus test env that I could execute container > > > side tests in and I've gotten a fair way there. > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > good to hear > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > The Good: > > > 1) Cactus gives us an alternative means to test (in the container) > > > 2) Cargo integration will be a great way to build tests that > > > automatically invoke the example code on a wide range of containers > > > with each release. This will help us avoid problems with the various > > > containers because of a lack of testing. > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > Cool. Maybe I should revive my ant-task for the Yourkit-profiler? > > > Right now I have a web-app (done with JSF) and a servlet (for use > > > with JMeter and similar) to control the Yourkit Profiler from distance. > > > For an old version I once had also an ant-task... but I seem to have > > > lost that source... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > The Bad: > > > 1) more dependencies > > > 2) we don't seem to have a ground swell of support for testing so > > > this all might be for nothing > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > Dependencies are only for build and testing? Is that so bad? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > What are you thoughts? Since introduction of JUnit I've not seen any > > > additional tests being added to the mix. Its a huge task to get test > > > coverage but I think its worth it, we will significantly reduce the > > > uncertainty in doing a release if we can get a good set of tests in > > > place. > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > JUnit is on e part of the game. But with presentation layer stuff the > > > incontainer-testing is a must. The applications that depend on Myfaces > > > may not need it (maybe they also need it...), but the confidence the > > > incontainer test can give is important for future changes... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > I'm working on getting some more JUnit tests in place and would love > > > to write up what is required if that would help others get started. > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > Way cool. > > > > > > regards > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Trainings in English and German > > > >
