Hi George We will remove all the tests and these QA guys will never disturb us :)
Every time we remove a test we leave something untested. For example, SerializationTest is a base for all the tests that check serialization compatibility, and if we remove it because we do not think about serialization right now we will lose that compatibility. The same for performance, it is of importance still. Existing test suite allows us seeking performance regressions. Otherwise we will have to keep in sync two parallel test suites - one PerformanceTest based just for testing the performance and another one - for unit testing. So, what is the noise? GUI is thinking that those base classes are tests? Maybe it makes sense to rename PerformanceTest to e.g. PerformanceTost and GUI will be happy? Thanks, Mikhail Loenko Intel Middleware Products Division >-----Original Message----- >From: George Harley1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 7:24 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: RE: Unit test code in HARMONY-16 > >Hi Mikhail, > >Thanks for your very complete answer. > >> At some point we had different functionality in the >> PerformanceTest but it seems to have died now. That is basically it. > >Do you see this class (and its SecurityTest and SerializationTest >subclasses) as candidates for removal then ? When I run the security unit >tests inside my IDE they add some extra lines to the console output but, >since I am not thinking about performance right now, that is just >"background noise". > >Perhaps additional performance-related functionality would be better moved >out of the test class' hierarchy and into some decorator class ? That way >would give developers a bit more flexibility running the tests with or >without the intervention of the performance measurement code. Sound >reasonable ? > >Best regards, >George >________________________________________ >George C. Harley > > > > >"Loenko, Mikhail Y" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >13/01/2006 12:12 >Please respond to >harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >To ><harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> >cc > >Subject >RE: Unit test code in HARMONY-16 > > > > > > >As far as we did not have special performance tests, we used unit tests >to measure performance, i.e. to compare performance of our classes to >performance of "standard" classes. So we ran in cycle a single unit test >on both when there are our security classes in bootclasspath and when >there are not. And compared time. (Of course, not all the tests passed >on "RI") > >Some unit tests print various logs that make execution time volatile. To >make it more stable we used log() instead of System.out.print() and in >the "performance mode" did not print anything. log() is defined in the >PerformanceTest. At some point we had different functionality in the >PerformanceTest but it seems to have died now. That is basically it. > >The results helped us to find a number of performance leaks and improve >overall quality of the code. > >Thanks, >Mikhail Loenko >Intel Middleware Products Division > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: George Harley1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:05 PM >>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >>Subject: Unit test code in HARMONY-16 >> >>Hi, >> >>I have been looking into running the JUnit tests included in HARMONY-16 >in >>my private sandbox. From what I have seen so far most (all ?) of the >test >>cases inherit from a base class PerformanceTest in the >>com.openintel.drl.security.test package. What is the purpose of this >base >>class ? >> >>Best regards, >>George >>________________________________________ >>George C. Harley
