Richard Liang wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
After read through the document recommended by Alex, I think TestNG
can really meet our requirement. It provides much flexibility for
test configuration. ;-)
If we decide to transfer to TestNG, we shall:
1. Identify Harmony testing strategy. (It's not easy)
2. Define TestNG suite/groups to reflect Harmony testing strategy
3. Decide to use Java 5 Annotations or Java 1.4 JavaDoc annotations
Any difference between using 1.4 doclet or 5.0 annotation? If we use
Java 1.4 so far, can we migrate to annotation easily?
Both 1.4 doclet and 5.0 annotation can provide same support for
testing configuration. The retention policy of TestNG's 5.0 annotation
is RUNTIME, that's the TestNG tests should be compiled into 5.0
classes [1]. I don't think it's easy to migrate from doclet to
annotation, at least, TestNG does not this support. Correct me if I'm
wrong. ;-)
1. http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#jdk-14
4. Convert all JUnit tests to TestNG tests (TestNG provides a tool
"org.testng.JUnitConverter" for migrating from JUnit, but it seems
that the tool has a bug :-P )
I'm sorry, but...what the bug looks like? I think it is important
because we have so many JUnit tests already, it will be a big concern
of the TestNG solution if we have not tool to migrate.
I can show an example :-)
For a junit tests:
import junit.framework.TestCase;
public class SampleTest extends TestCase{
public void testMethod1() {
assertTrue(true);
}
}
We suppose the corresponding TestNG test is:
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
import static org.testng.AssertJUnit.*;
public class SampleTest{
@Test
public void testMethod1() {
assertTrue(true);
}
}
But the tool will only add TestNG annotation to junit test methods:
import org.testng.annotations.*;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
public class SampleTest extends TestCase{
@Test
public void testMethod1() {
assertTrue(true);
}
}
Sorry Paulex, It sounds not a bug if we decide to use TestNG while still
keeping the flexibility to use JUnit. Any comments? Thanks a lot.
Richard
TestNG Eclipse plugin also provide a way to convert junit test to
TestNG test[2], unfortunately, it also has bugs. :-( It should be
static import all the assert methods of org.testng.AssertJUnit, but
the converter only uses common import.
2. http://testng.org/doc/eclipse.html
5. Choose a module to run a pilot
...
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Richard.
George Harley wrote:
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems that you're very familiar with TestNG. ;-) So would you
please
identify what we shall do to transfer from junit to TestNG?
Thanks a lot.
Me? I'm just highly opinionated :-)
Hi Alex,
I think we are all pretty much in the TestNG novice category :-)
There's guidelines for migrating from JUnit to TestNG at the home
page:
http://testng.org/doc/migrating.html
"Here is a sample use that will convert all the JUnit tests in the
src/ directory to TestNG:
java org.testng.JUnitConverter -overwrite -annotation -srcdir src"
:-)
I have done some private experimentation with this command line
utility and it seems to work well. In the first instance it would
be good to preserve the JUnit "nature" of the tests - i.e. still
have the test classes extend from JUnit TestCase etc - so that
there is always a backwards migration path. That's me being
paranoid. Note that the equivalent migration functionality in the
latest TestNG plug-in for Eclipse did not allow that but, in
addition to adding in the annotations, insisted on removing the
inheritance from TestCase.
There's also instructions about how to set it up with an Ant-based
build:
http://testng.org/doc/ant.html
I'll see if I can migrate the tests I've got in the Pack200 dir to
use
TestNG, so that you can see what it looks like. Unfortunately, I
doubt
that I'm going to be able to get to that much before 2 weeks time due
to other outstanding commitments ...
Alex.
Although we haven't gotten round to discussing specifics yet, it is
probably timely to mention here that using the TestNG annotations
approach (as opposed to the pre-1.5 Javadoc comments approach) will
not work so long as we are compiling Harmony code with the "jsr14"
target. It looked like the annotation metadata did not make it into
the generated class files (at least this is what I saw in my own
experiments). If we want to use the annotations approach we will
have to wait until we move up to compiling for a 1.5 target.
Hopefully that will not be too long now......
In the meantime you could try out using the Javadoc comments
approach, just to get a feel for how things run. The downside to
that is that your test source needs to be available at runtime so
that the comments are available for the framework to examine.
Best regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
