Thanks for the link - I've been meaning to look at it ever since I heard that Google made it available. In an ideal world, that tool would be able to work with Pivot apps as well as Swing & SWT.
On 30 June 2011 00:47, Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]> wrote: > could also borrow some ideas form this: > http://code.google.com/javadevtools/wintester/html/index.html > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Pivot unit testing > From: Chris Bartlett <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed 29 Jun 2011 06:57:39 AM CDT > > Thanks for the info, Greg. > > > > I did have a *very* quick look at the SwingDemo, but I wasn't clear about > > exactly what is required of an ApplicationContext. > > My initial thought was that it might be simple to create a new > > UnitTestApplicationContext, but then the size of > DesktopApplicationContext > > suggested otherwise. > > > > My dirty hack works for now, but I will create a JIRA wish for > > UnitTestApplicationContext, and try to follow up later. > > > > Chris > > > > On 29 June 2011 18:43, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>> 1) Is there an 'official' minimum version of JUnit expected for Pivot's > >>> build? > >>> > >> I believe it is 4.7. > >> > >> > >>> 2a) Has there ever been a discussion on unit testing Pivot GUIs, using > >>> > >> real > >> > >>> Components and a real Display? > >>> > >>> 2b) If so, did the idea of a UnitTestApplicationContext come up, or is > it > >>> worth considering? > >>> > >> This is an interesting idea, as is the concept of a headless Display. > >> > >> > >>> I hacked together a quick 'unit test Display provider' by instantiating > a > >>> custom Application with DesktopApplicationContext and waiting until a > >>> > >> static > >> > >>> Display field was set. > >>> > >> Take a look at the Swing demo for an example of creating a custom > >> application context. > >> > >> > >>> 3) Are unit tests that require a Display deliberately avoided so that > the > >>> build can run in headless environments? > >>> > >> Yes, that's part of it. But you are right - there are definitely ways to > >> make this work. > >> > >> G > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
