Hi Richard, On 3/21/06, Richard Liang wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > Good unit tests are going to be testing things that are package > > protected. You can't do that if you aren't in the same package > > (obviously). With the "custom" of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we > > implicitly discouraging good testing practice? Given that this > > o.a.h.t.* pattern comes from Eclipse-land, how do they do it? I > > couldn't imagine that the Eclipse tests don't test package protected > > things. > > > Hello Geir, > > Maybe we should have two types of test suites: > 1. Test for APIs including public and protected methods which could be > run against different Java SE implementations. > ==>> If we want to test a protected method of a class, we could mock a > subclass of this class. And write test case against the subclass. > (Protected methods are accessible to subclass) > > 2. Test for internal implementation which may include tests for package > private methods and tests for other internal-used classes. > ==>>We must put the tests into the same package if we want to test > package private methods of a class. I agree with you that we should put tests in separate suites. I did the similar suggestion[1] a while ago. Thanks, Stepan. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > These are just some rough thinking ;-) Any comments? Thanks a lot. > > I've been short of Round Tuits lately, but I still would like to > > investigate a test harness that helps us by mitigating the security > > issues... > > > > geir > > > > Mark Hindess wrote: > >> I thought the crucial thing was that tests should be in a separate > >> namespace not in the namespace of the package they are testing (at > >> least not unless it was absolutely necessary). > >> -Mark. > >> > >> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I'm doing it now. > >>> > >>> I need to go back and stare at our discussion on test setup, because > >>> I'm > >>> still not a raving fan of o.a.h.test.... > >>> > >>> geir > >>> > >>> Mark Hindess wrote: > >>>> Don't worry, you'd have to be less subtle for me to take something > >>>> as criticism. > >>>> > >>>> I've had an attempt at moving beans out - HARMONY-218. If that gets > >>>> committed I'll do the other too. > >>>> > >>>> -Mark. > >>>> > >>>> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> That wasn't a criticism, btw. It seemed like a natural thing to > >>>>> do when > >>>>> I first saw it, but when I was actually dealing w/ it, my opinion > >>>>> changed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yah, split away! That was going to be my next question, how to > >>>>> split.. > >>>>> > >>>>> geir > >>>>> > >>>>> Mark Hindess wrote: > >>>>>> Fair enough. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mind if I redo the script/patch to split the three modules to match > >>>>>> the structure of the others? That is, into separate modules/math, > >>>>>> modules/beans, modules/regex directories? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Mark. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> I just committed. There was some delay because of a missing > >>>>>>> CCLA. Sorry. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've committed the code as is from the JIRA. I'm going to do > >>>>>>> some basic > >>>>>>> cleanup and then look at hte patches to integrate. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Looking at this (and 88?) I think that this "add patches" > >>>>>>> approach is a > >>>>>>> bad one, because it complicates what this JIRA is now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the future, I think we should just create new JIRA's for > >>>>>>> add-ons (if > >>>>>>> the add-on contributor isn't the contributor of the original > >>>>>>> JIRA) and > >>>>>>> just link them so they are easy to keep track of... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Richard Liang wrote: > >>>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Despite a touch of trouble with the packaging of the > >>>>>>>>> contribution, it > >>>>>>>>> passed with flying colors ( or 'colours', for our UK friends...) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 from : > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Geir > >>>>>>>>> Stefano > >>>>>>>>> Dims > >>>>>>>>> Tim > >>>>>>>>> Leo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In it comes.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I have received the ACQs and the BCC for Harmony-39, so I can > >>>>>>>>>> assert > >>>>>>>>>> that the critical provenance paperwork is in order (although > >>>>>>>>>> not in > >>>>>>>>>> SVN yet). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into the Apache > >>>>>>>>>> Harmony > >>>>>>>>>> class library : > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] + 1 Accept > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Reject (provide reason below > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone states they need > >>>>>>>>>> more time > >>>>>>>>>> or b) we get all committer votes before then. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Go... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> geir > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello Geir, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As this contribution has been accepted for a long time, I'm > >>>>>>>> wondering > >>>>>>>> when the source code could be put into Harmony SVN. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm working on the implementation of java.text.DecimalFormat > >>>>>>>> which has > >>>>>>>> enhancements on BigDecimal and BigInteger support. Now I just > >>>>>>>> use this > >>>>>>>> contribution as external jars in Eclipse. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK. > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK. > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > -- Thanks, Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division
