Tim Ellison wrote: > >We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.<whatever> >namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply > ><package>.<type> -> org.apache.harmony.tests.<package>.<type>Test >
Placing classes and tests for them in different packages won't allow testing package access functionality. > >Then within the test class itself the methods are named after the method >under test, with a familar JNI-style encoding, so we have things like: > I agree that method names should have meaningful name. But using JNI-style shouldn't be a mandatory rule for naming test methods. Because this may result in creatingLveryLlongLandLhardLtoLreadLandLunderstandLmethodLname. For example, KerberosTicket class constructor has 11 parameters. Thanks, Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:27 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Test suite layout (was: Re: regression test suite) > >What we've tended to do, internally, is to name the testcases after the >type they are testing, so all unit tests for java.io.File are put into a >tests package ending with java.io in a type called FileTest that extends >the junit.framework.TestCase. > >We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.<whatever> >namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply > ><package>.<type> -> org.apache.harmony.tests.<package>.<type>Test > >This makes it clear what is being tested, and where to add new tests etc. > >Then within the test class itself the methods are named after the method >under test, with a familar JNI-style encoding, so we have things like: > >org.apache.harmony.tests.java.io.FileTest contains > public void test_ConstructorLjava_io_FileLjava_lang_String() { > ... > } > >and > >org.apache.harmony.tests.java.lang.FloatTest contains > public void test_compareToLjava_lang_Float() { > ... > } > > >If the test is added due to a regression, then it is put into the right >place in the test suite, and flagged with a comment (i.e. a reference to >the Harmony JIRA number). > >Regards, >Tim > > >George Harley1 wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >>>I think that regression tests should be marked in some way. >> >> >> Agreed. But can we please *resist* the temptation to do this by >> incorporating JIRA issue numbers into test case names (e.g. calling unit >> test methods test_26() or test_JIRA_26()). I've seen this kind of >approach >> adopted in a couple of projects and, in my experience, it often leads to >> the scattering of duplicated test code around the test harness. >> >> Better, methinks, to either create a new test method with a meaningful >> name or else augment an existing method - whatever makes more sense for >> the particular issue. Then marking certain code as being for regression >> test purposes could be done in comments that include the URL of the JIRA >> issue. Perhaps an agreed tag like "JIRA" or "BUG" etc could be used as an >> eye-catcher as well ? >> e.g. >> >> // BUG http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-26 >> >> >> My 2 Euro Cents. >> >> Best regards, >> George >> ________________________________________ >> George C. Harley >> >> >> >> >> "Mishura, Stepan M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 12/01/2006 04:56 >> Please respond to >> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> >> To >> <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> >> cc >> >> Subject >> RE: regression test suite >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> Tim Ellison wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>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 agree that separating regression tests doesn't make sense. >> However I think that regression tests should be marked in some way. >> This will signal a developer that a test was created to track already >> known issue. IMHO, a regression test should point out to a bug report >> and a bug report (after resolving a bug) should contain a reference to >> corresponding regression test in repository. >> >> Thanks, >> Stepan Mishura >> Intel Middleware Products Division >> >> >> > >-- > >Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >IBM Java technology centre, UK.
