Mikhail Loenko wrote: > 2006/7/5, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi, >> >> Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my >> attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while now. >> I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of class >> library test layouts. >> >> The current proposal [1] sets out to segment our different types of test >> by placing them in different file locations. After looking at the recent >> changes to the LUNI module tests (where the layout guidelines were >> applied) I have a real concern that there are serious problems with this >> approach. We have started down a track of just continually growing the >> number of test source folders as new categories of test are identified >> and IMHO that is going to bring complexity and maintenance issues with >> these tests. >> >> Consider the dimensions of tests that we have ... >> >> API >> Harmony-specific >> Platform-specific >> Run on classpath >> Run on bootclasspath >> Behaves different between Harmony and RI > > BTW, these are Harmony-specific... > > > I see your point. And I think we need this directory-level split to > make it possible > to run variuous kinds of tests with different frameworks. We were already > discussing that JUnit extensions are not very good for performance testing. > In the future we might find out that some new test contribution is > inconsistent with the framework we have chosen. > > So I'm for directory-level separation of the tests. (Probably some > categories > should have their own build)
Considering just the JUnit tests that we have at the moment... Do I understand you correctly that you agree with the idea of creating 'suites of tests' using metadata (such as TestNG's annotations or whatever) and not by using the file system layout currently being proposed? I know that you are also thinking about integration tests, stress tests, performance tests, etc. as well but just leaving those aside at the moment. Regards, Tim > Thanks > Mikhail > > >> Stress >> ...and so on... >> >> >> If you weigh up all of the different possible permutations and then >> consider that the above list is highly likely to be extended as things >> progress it is obvious that we are eventually heading for large amounts >> of related test code scattered or possibly duplicated across numerous >> "hard wired" source directories. How maintainable is that going to be ? >> >> If we want to run different tests in different configurations then IMHO >> we need to be thinking a whole lot smarter. We need to be thinking about >> keeping tests for specific areas of functionality together (thus easing >> maintenance); we need something quick and simple to re-configure if >> necessary (pushing whole directories of files around the place does not >> seem a particularly lightweight approach); and something that is not >> going to potentially mess up contributed patches when the file they >> patch is found to have been recently pushed from source folder A to B. >> >> To connect into another recent thread, there have been some posts lately >> about handling some test methods that fail on Harmony and have meant >> that entire test case classes have been excluded from our test runs. I >> have also been noticing some API test methods that pass fine on Harmony >> but fail when run against the RI. Are the different behaviours down to >> errors in the Harmony implementation ? An error in the RI implementation >> ? A bug in the RI Javadoc ? Only after some investigation has been >> carried out do we know for sure. That takes time. What do we do with the >> test methods in the meantime ? Do we push them round the file system >> into yet another new source folder ? IMHO we need a testing strategy >> that enables such "problem" methods to be tracked easily without >> disruption to the rest of the other tests. >> >> A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the TestNG framework [2] seemed >> like a reasonably good way of allowing us to both group together >> different kinds of tests and permit the exclusion of individual >> tests/groups of tests [3]. I would like to strongly propose that we >> consider using TestNG as a means of providing the different test >> configurations required by Harmony. Using a combination of annotations >> and XML to capture the kinds of sophisticated test configurations that >> people need, and that allows us to specify down to the individual >> method, has got to be more scalable and flexible than where we are >> headed now. >> >> Thanks for reading this far. >> >> Best regards, >> George >> >> >> [1] >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html >> >> [2] http://testng.org >> [3] >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200606.mbox/[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] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- 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]
