Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2006/5/16, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > Hi George, see below
>> >
>> > 2006/5/16, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> Hi Mikhail,
>> >>
>> >> I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
>> >> layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I have
suffered
>> >> from a number of hardware problems in the past few weeks that
slowed
>> >> things down somewhat for me. Anyway, it's all great but it would
>> be nice
>> >> to get answers to the following ...
>> >>
>> >> 1) The section on "Location of the tests in the directory tree"
>> >> proposes <modulename>/src/tests/impl for Harmony specific tests
and
>> >> <modulename>/src/tests/api for implementation-independent tests.
>> Where
>> >> would tests go for Harmony API's that are not part of the J2SE
>> spec but
>> >> are still accessible ? Strictly speaking they are API as well as
>> being
>> >> specific to Harmony.
>> >
>> > The main idea is to separate tests that must pass on any conformant
>> > implementation from the tests passing on Harmony only.
>> >
>> > When these are separated we can e.g. easily validate
"implementation-
>> > independent" tests by running them against RI. Actually I would not
>> > like to
>> > start an endless "philosophical" discussion here about what are
>> > unit vs. api vs. whatever tests.
>>
>> Me ? Start a philosophical discussion ? :-)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "api" is just a name (suggested by Tim) and might be changed to any
>> > unconfusing one.
>> >
>> > So, back to your question, those must go to 'impl' as far as
they fail
>> > on RI:
>> > "<modulename>/src/tests/impl - Harmony specific tests"
>> >
>> >> What about the location of tests designed to run on
>> >> the classpath and tests designed to run on the bootclasspath ?
>> That does
>> >> not seem to be addressed in this section. When the tests are run
>> how are
>> >
>> > Directory defines the root of the test suite, then the package
goes,
>> > see "Package names for different types of the tests" section:
>> > "If the test is designed to be run from bootclasspath then its
package
>> > is the same as the package of the class under test"
>> >
>>
>> Is it the case that all of the classes under a particular source
folder
>> (say src/tests/api/java) get compiled to one output folder ?
>
> We have not discuss it yet. So, suggestions are welcome! :)
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>
Hi Mikhail,
OK, great. I'm wondering about how the test classes intended to be
loaded by the bootclasspath loader get distinguished from the classes
that are intended to be loaded by the system loader. For the sake of
discussion, imagine that all of the test classes under a given source
folder (e.g. src/tests/api/java) get compiled to just one output folder
(e.g. bin). At test runtime we only want the classes that are "in the
same package as the class under test" to be on the bootclasspath - but
how is this enforced ? If the tests are being run from an Ant script
then I think that it is possible to do this using Ant's path-like
structures where wildcards can be specified among the classpath and
bootclasspath elements. But how can an equivalent degree of separation
be enforced if the tests are being run from an IDE such as Eclipse ?
I am not exactly an Eclipse "power-user" so it is possible that I am
missing some piece of magic here but it appears to me that if I want to
configure the classpath and bootclasspath for running a particular set
of unit tests I can only work at the output folder level. That is, it
can be configured that classes under a root folder of "bin" are on the
classpath and that classes under the root folder "bin-other" are
similarly on the bootclasspath. But there is nothing available that only
puts classes in package java.util.* under "bin" on the bootclasspath and
everything else on the classpath.
All of which makes me wonder if we should aim at compiling classes
intended for the bootclasspath to one bin and classes intended for the
classpath to another bin. It wouldn't really make much difference to Ant
users but as far as I can tell it would offer more flexibility to IDE
users who would then have the potential to run the tests in a way that
was more familiar to them (runtime configuration, green bar etc).
Best regards,
George
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> the "bootclasspath" and "classpath" tests distinguished ?
Purely on
>> >> package name ? Did you ever see the append I wrote to the list a
>> couple
>> >> of weeks ago on this topic ? [1]
>> >
>> > Yes, I've seen it. As you could notice we had more test categories.
>> > They are described in the same thread. We might have
>> > "independent" tests running from bootclasspath and "specific" ones
>> > running from classpath.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 2) Still in the "Location of the tests in the directory tree"
>> section,
>> >> shouldn't the suggested source folder names include "java" in
there ?
>> >> e.g. <modulename>/src/tests/java/api ? What is wrong with the
>> >> src/test/java (below here is Java code), src/test/resources (below
>> here
>> >> is non-code test artefacts) convention ? I notice that at
present the
>> >> page does not include any mention of where test resources would
go.
>> >
>> > Yes, you are right. It's missing.
>> >
>> > It was supposed to be under test "type", like:
>> > module/src/test/api/java
>> > module/src/test/api/resources
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 3) What does the sentence "Tests are not separated by
functionality
>> >> under test, e.g. tests against clone() methods are not
separated from
>> >> tests against equals() methods" actually mean ?
>> >
>> > That was to address Tim's concern:
>> > " > 1. Tests are separated on directory level by 'intention'
>> >
>> > I agree where the intention is broad (i.e. functional tests vs.
>> > performance tests vs. stress tests) but I'm not convinced that
we need
>> > to separate to a precise 'intent', at least I've never been in a
>> > position where I've wished that my my serialization tests are
separate
>> > from my cloning tests or whatever."
>> >
>> > Feel free to reword if something is not clear in the proposal
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mikhail
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> George
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200604.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> >> > Hello
>> >> >
>> >> > I would like to make some changes in the crypto module:
>> >> >
>> >> > - Separate implemetation-independent tests from implementation
>> >> specific
>> >> > ones.
>> >> >
>> >> > - Fix layout according to the proposed scheme [1]
>> >> >
>> >> > Please let me know if you do any changes in that module then
>> >> > I'll delay restruct.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Mikhail
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
>>
