Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up. This has been on my to-do list to talk about. > > inline > > Vladimir Strigun wrote: > >> We already discussed several questions about tests. But I'd like to >> open a new topic about regression test suite. Some API bugs have been >> fixed (or patch suggested) and I think it will be useful to have >> regression tests for all these bugs to avoid them reappearing in the >> future. >> >> I think the natural place for the regression tests should be together >> with the unit tests. I am not sure, however, if the regression tests >> should be marked explicitly or differ from the unit tests in any other >> specific way. >> >> What do you think about it? Any preferences? > > > I think that putting them in a parallel tree is worth considering, just > for the sake of organization, as long as this is transparent to the > tools a developer/user would use to do run the tests. I do think that > "regression test" is a broad term, and we might want to harvest things > out of regression tests for where our unit tests fell short.
Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, the existing tests hardly need organizing (all three of them!) -- but let's go mad and assume we have lots of tests housed in our repository. What is the useful distinction for regression tests being kept separate? I can see that you may distinguish unit and 'system-level' tests just because of the difference in frameworks etc. required, but why do I care if the test was written due to a JIRA issue or test-based development or someone who get's kicks out of writing tests to break the code? > I also believe we should be encourging bug reporters to submit a test > that demonstrates the bug. We'd acquire a good set of tests at that point. Agreed, a simple failing test with a description of expected results is the ideal way to report a bug. In particular, people are not expected to suggest a patch when they raise issues, though they are of course welcome to do so. > I was going to take a hard look at the build/test framework this > week(end). Might as well start now. Currently, it's JUnit. I'm > wondering if anyone would consider switching to TestNG. I've never used > it, but it's written by a guy I really respect and the point was to > address shortcomings he found in JUnit... I've never used TestNG, so have no opinion at the moment. What's so good about it? Regards, Tim > geir > >> >> Thank you, >> Vladimir Strigun, Intel Middleware Products Division. >> >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
