Hi, Stepan,
"No we shouldn't write a mock http server for each case (I mean that we need
not implement http protocol each time)."
Shall we implement http sometimes? If no, how can we verfiy
HttpURLConnection function, for example, whether the request is in http
format,
or chuncked http request.
If there's a mock httpserver utility, which could assert whether receieved
http request is correct, and could generate customized http output, it can
be called "little jetty". If the utility httpserver could customize output
more flexibility, could make some unspecial output which jetty couldn't, it
could be called "enhanced jetty". Finally, the utility class will have to
implement http protocol and become an HttpSrever or
EnhanceedHttpServer(since it could do some extra work, e.g, produce broken
http response, etc.).
"So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can be used
for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?"
If there's a mock server utility can be easily used for normal and abnormal
http test, I've no objection to use it.
At least, we have one in common: reduce external dependency. Right?
Thanks.
On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi, Stepan,
>
> "With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
> demonstrates the possible way."
>
> Shall we write a mock http server for each case? It takes lots of
> reduplicate efforts and results in many mock http server classes in the
> end.
No we shouldn't write a mock http server for each case (I mean that we
need
not implement http protocol each time). In "HARMONY-164 version" mock
server
is an instance of class that extends Thread class. The mock server is
started before running test and by default is just listens for incoming
connection. A test has access to server's instance and may configure it
response (I didn't implemented but it is also possible to save request to
be
verified). There is no http protocol implementation.
In fact, for many regular tests, jetty works fine.
>
> And I also agree that for negative tests and some other special tests
> which
> jetty could not satisfy , we should use mock http server instead.
So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can be used
for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?
Thanks,
Stepan.
What's your opnion?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi George, Tim
> >
> > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > 1) Configuring
> > As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we can
> > start/stop
> > it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all we need
to
> > do
> > is just download required jars. Right?
> >
> > What about Eclipse users?
> >
> > 2) Time to run test suite
> > May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test suite run
slow
> > down
> > if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
> >
> > 3) Testing
> > Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to force a
> server
> > to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so in this
> case
> > the server and client have an understanding that when the client asks
> for
> > a
> > particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
> >
> > With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
> > demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create negative
> tests,
> > for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty server
> be
> > used for negative testing?
> >
> > See other comments below
> >
> > On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
> > >
> > > Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty from common test
> suite
> > > >> run.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal' test suite
run
> (
> > I
> > > > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony test suite I
> > > > have to
> > > > configure and run 20 different external servers even they are easy
> > > > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use mock objects
-
> so
> > > > let's
> > > > use them! For example, in this case there is no need in jetty
> server.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate
such
> > > > tests.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stepan.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Stepan,
> > >
> > > Just seen this note and think that my previous append on the "Re:
svn
> > > commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to quote
myself:
> > >
> > > <paste>
> > > Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server stubs. It
is
> > > fast, it is lightweight,
> >
> >
> > Fast and lightweight as what?
> > I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
> > jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
> >
> >
> > > it can be started and stopped very simply from
> > > within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a specified
batch
> > > of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from Java test
> code
> > > so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case from within
> > > that test case.
> >
> >
> > Good.
> >
> > It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
> > > a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its runtime
> > > behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
> >
> >
> > What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty server to
send
> > it
> > a chunked response?
> >
> > I don't really understand why such network tests making use of a
small,
> > > embedded server running locally would need to be considered as
outside
> > > of the "normal test flow".
> > > </paste>
> >
> >
> > Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding other
> > dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal test
> flow"
> > should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each additional
> > dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light) to
> > developer's
> > large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow and hard
> to
> > configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty
server
> > inside it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > We are not talking about an external server here and we are not
talking
> > > about developers having to carry out complex configuration
manoeuvres
> > > when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants. The
> > > motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests out of
the
> > > "excludes" sin bin.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >> Tim
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan Mishura
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Zhang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
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]
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
