On 1/24/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > Hello > > > > We have figured out that one of approcahes that was earlier dicussed and > > that > > I originally opposed would work for us. > > > > That is: get PerformanceTest class out of there and replace log() with calls > > to java.util.logging.Logger. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > What are you logging?
Normally any information that would be useful to easily detect the reason of failure. A good test explains why it failed, the best test submits a bug report and provides a patch, the worst test just complains that it failed. I would not wish to debug just to figure out that the reason of failures is that I've forgot to include something to classpath or there is another config problem > > Nobody is going to search log files looking for success/failure messages. Agreed > > If the test passes, then all is fine; if it does not pass then it should > inform the framework (i.e. a failing assertion or an explicit call to > fail()). At that point JUnit will give you a cause of failure, and if fail() is not always convinient, for example, how would you print stack trace to fail()? Meanwhile stacktrace is most often enough to find what the problems are and sort them out. Thanks, Mikhail > that is not enough you debug it with a debugger not println's. > > Regards, > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. >
