On 4/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/4/27, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 4/27/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I say leave them mixed. We are no more likely to want to run > > > serialization tests separately than we are locking tests etc. and trying > > > to layout the tests on disk to represent all the different metadata > > > about each test case is not going to work. > > > > +1. usually we have test layout like: one class - one TestCase. I > > Sometimes we need different setUp and tearDown operations > for different tests against the same class. This is best to be handled as > multiple TestCases (or test classes in other words as TestCase can be > ambiguous)
That's true. It happens quite often and has no correlation with some particular type of tests (like serialization testing). When you need to cover 50 methods of some class for instance, you can hardly expect that all the preparation required for one of them is really needed for others. I don't think that is a good reason to create separated test cases. I'd prefer to use the most essential and common instantiations in setUp() and provide further customization in each particular test. I expected that is common approach... IMHO the reason to introduce additinal TestCases can be when one need to test something really 'separated'. Something, which requires absolutely different setUp() and may even override runBare() (to run tests in the another thread, etc). For instance, it may be nesessary for multi-threading testing. Wishes, -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
