On 3/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > > > Leo Simons wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 07:34:16AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >>> LEO : > >>> I'll point out that every time you restrict to an ordered sequence of > >>> taking care of things in an open souce community you do slow them down > just > >>> a little (hey, that's an interesting assertion. Hmm. Should write a > book > >>> about it I guess) so make sure its what you want :-). > >> Huh? > > > > You didn't say "let us test the code in isolation [using a smart > framework]", > > you said "let us test the code in isolation *first* [using a smart > > framework]". I need to write a book about why I think the difference > > matters, and it needs to be a book because I'll need many many words... > > Oh - no, I didn't mean that. Sorry. All three are independent. You can > do them in parallel. We can build our mechanism to do the > implementation tests correctly while we continue to do everything else. > > I just wanted to see if I could get through the fog and be clear what > the issues are and stop confusing #1 and #2, both of which are important. > > To test java.util.Foo, I believe it's important to have BOTH > > java.util.FooTest > > AND > > org.apache.harmony.test.java.util.FooTest > > as they are intended to test different things (the first as a > 'un-integrated' implementation test and the second as an 'in-situ' > API/spec test).
Yes, indeed. We should admit that we need both tests rather then arguing which test is the right. Thanks, Stepan. If we agree on that and recognize that, I suspect the test debates will > come to rapid closure, and we'll have a mini-roadmap of what we want to > do in the testing area that is parallelizable and doesn't hold anyone up. > > geir > > > -- Thanks, Stepan Mishura Intel Middleware Products Division
