Thanks for the pointer - I'll dig into this ASAP. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 ----- "David E Jones" <david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > A good file to see this in is servicetests.xml. While all tests in > this file can be run together, there are really 3 different sets in > the file that could be independent. > > Anyway, here is one set of test-cases that are meant to be run > together: > > <test-case case-name="load-service-test-data"> > <entity-xml action="load" > entity-xml-url="component://service/ > testdef/data/ServiceTestData.xml"/> > </test-case> > <test-case case-name="service-dead-lock-retry-test"> > <service-test service-name="testServiceDeadLockRetry"/> > </test-case> > <test-case case-name="service-dead-lock-retry-assert-data"> > <entity-xml action="assert" entity-xml-url="component:// > service/testdef/data/ServiceDeadLockRetryAssertData.xml"/> > </test-case> > > and here is another: > > <test-case case-name="service-own-tx-sub-service-after-set- > rollback-only-in-parent"> > <service-test service- > name > = > "testServiceOwnTxSubServiceAfterSetRollbackOnlyInParentErrorCatchWrapper > > "/> > </test-case> > <test-case case-name="service-own-tx-sub-service-after-set- > rollback-only-in-parent-assert-data"> > <entity-xml action="assert" entity-xml-url="component:// > service/testdef/data/ServiceSetRollbackOnlyAssertData.xml"/> > </test-case> > > -David > > > On Mar 7, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > > > Yeah, I guess I'm going to have to get into the test data in order > > > to disprove this. I just don't see how it could be possible that we > > > cannot load the appropriate data for a single test before and put > > the db back. Whether or not this is feasible in the sense of timing > > > on these particular tests is another matter. The way it runs now, > > > those other tests must be putting the data in the right state for > > someone to run the next test - which is tantamount to a data load. > > > > David, please let me know whether this is just my ignorance on this > > > particular data setup or if my assumptions above are incorrect. > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ruppert > > HotWax Media > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > o:801.649.6594 > > f:801.649.6595 > > > > ----- "David E Jones" <david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm still for running tests as a set for each suite. > >> > >> If you disagree with me, take a look at some of the current test > >> suite > >> > >> XML files and explain to me how it makes sense, or is even > possible, > >> > >> to run most of them with 100% independent tests. You can't even > load > >> > >> or assert data if you run each test case independently... > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> > >>> I haven't worked on it for a few weeks but I do have some code > that > >> > >>> can track changes on the GenericDelegator and then reverse them > when > >> > >>> requested. At the moment it makes the test independent at the > >>> component level, mostly because the was the easiest place to do > it. > >> > >>> I've tested it by exporting the data from a fresh install, > running > >> > >>> the tests, exporting again and comparing the differences and at > the > >> > >>> moment the only data that gets left behind is anything coming > from > >> > >>> async service calls. > >>> > >>> I'll try and make some time for getting it to work at the test > level > >> > >>> over the next couple of days and then put a patch in jira for > >>> review. Of course the problem with committing it is that a large > >>> percentage of the tests will fail because they depend on the > tests > >> > >>> that came before them. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> HotWax Media > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>> 801.657.2909 > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Tim Ruppert" <tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com> > >>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2009 1:13:26 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada > >> Mountain > >>> Subject: Re: how to write a test case > >>> > >>> I've been a committer on a number of xxxUnit projects in the past > >>> and grew up as one of the people bringing the agile development > >>> processes to many different organizations, so I'd like to think > that > >> > >>> I'm pretty savvy on this stuff. That being said, I've never been > >>> happy with the way the testing frameworks work in OFBiz - some > >>> because of my ignorance, but mostly because of the dependencies. > >>> I've built code in a test-driven environment and let me just say > >>> that we had few bugs that weren't caught, so when people added > >>> stuff, we knew just about each and every time when there were > side > >> > >>> effects and were able to fix them quickly. > >>> > >>> What I'd like to see sometime soon is something that works like > >> this: > >>> > >>> 1. Each test (note I did not say component or test suite or test > >>> group, I said test) is totally independent. > >>> > >>> 2. Each test utilizes entity engine XML files to load the > >>> appropriate data necessary for that test. > >>> -- Sometimes this will mean loading the same or similar XML files > a > >> > >>> few times. > >>> -- That's ok :) > >>> > >>> 3. Each test puts the db back in exactly the same state as it was > >>> before the test. > >>> -- I used to use DbUnit to do this in the past. > >>> -- Did this for both WebTest tests (functional) and normal JUnit > > >>> tests. > >>> -- Worked like a charm. > >>> -- This should be even easier for us because the Entity Engine can > > >> > >>> keep track of all we do and roll it all back. > >>> -- I know that Scott Gray has been working with this for a bit - > and > >> > >>> it would be a HUGE win IMHO. > >>> > >>> 4. Utilizing the Entity Engine for better testing. > >>> -- This is alluded to in #3 above about the roll backs. > >>> -- It would also be cool if it could keep track of all you and > BUILD > >> > >>> an entity engine XML file and save it if you like. > >>> -- -- This should be super easy as well. > >>> -- Then you could use these files you're generating in these tests > > >> > >>> for future tests. > >>> > >>> Anyways, that's my wish list and something that if we start to > get > >> > >>> into place, I think we can build TONS of new unit tests around > the > >> > >>> existing work. It will make each everyone's lives easier and the > >>> project even more viable long term. Looking forward to feedback > >>> whenever you guys get a chance, but I really feel this is the way > we > >> > >>> should go. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Tim > >>> -- > >>> Tim Ruppert > >>> HotWax Media > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>> > >>> o:801.649.6594 > >>> f:801.649.6595 > >>> > >>> ----- "Vikas Mayur" <vikas.ma...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Vikas Mayur wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> How did it work? I reverted back to 660193, the last patch > for > >>>>>>> OFBIZ-1790, and the accounting tests failed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If they worked in the past, I'd like to know when. If so, > then > >>>> that > >>>>>>> means something since then has caused them to break, and I > will > >>>> more > >>>>>>> than gladly track that down. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> However, if they have never worked(which is what I'm strongly > >>>>>>> suspecting), then I stand by my original assessment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Do not know why it is not working for you and I have no > >>>> idea/solution > >>>>>> for this. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you run the test individually, and follow the instructions > in > >>>> the > >>>>> file, it'll probably work. > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, I think so. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> However, that's not how things are done. > >>>>> > >>>>> All tests are run together. Every testdef/*.xml file that is > in > >>>> any > >>>>> ofbiz-component.xml is run one after the other, with no chance > >> for > >>>> any > >>>>> manual setup between each test. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this circumstance, they do not work, and never did work. It > >> is > >>>>> this circumstance that an *automated* test case must work. > >>>> > >>>> I do not know what is the point here to discuss same thing again > >> and > >>>> > >>>> again. I agree to your point of making test automated and lot of > >>>> people have complaint about > >>>> this in past but no one really come forward for the > contribution. > >>>> > >>>> Its really useless point to discuss on that these things in the > >> trunk > >>>> > >>>> are making you frustrated because they are not written properly > so > >> > >>>> why > >>>> > >>>> not complain early in the process and not after a YEAR or so. > >> Sorry > >>>> man, no time to look back and why not fix them by yourself if > you > >> see > >>>> > >>>> issues.
