Thanks,
2006/7/18, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 7/18/06, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oliver Deakin wrote:
> > > George Harley wrote:
> > >> <SNIP!>
> > >>
> > >> Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test
methods.
> > >>
> > >> So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for
use
> > >> inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> * type.impl -- tests that are specific to Harmony
> > >
> > > So tests are implicitly API unless specified otherwise?
> > >
> > > I'm slightly confused by your definition of impl tests as "tests
that
> > are
> > > specific to Harmony". Does this mean that impl tests are only
> > > those that test classes in org.apache.harmony packages?
> > > I thought that impl was our way of saying "tests that need to
go on
> > > the bootclasspath".
> > >
> > > I think I just need a little clarification...
> > >
> >
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > I was using the definition of implementation-specific tests that we
> > currently have on the Harmony testing conventions web page. That is,
> > implementation-specific tests are those that are dependent on some
> > aspect of the Harmony implementation and would therefore not pass
when
> > run against the RI or other conforming implementations. It's
orthogonal
> > to the classpath/bootclasspath issue.
> >
> >
> > >> * state.broken.<platform id> -- tests bust on a specific
platform
> > >>
> > >> * state.broken -- tests broken on every platform but we want to
> > >> decide whether or not to run from our suite configuration
> > >>
> > >> * os.<platform id> -- tests that are to be run only on the
> > >> specified platform (a test could be member of more than one of
these)
> > >
> > > And the defaults for these are an unbroken state and runs on any
> > > platform.
> > > That makes sense...
> > >
> > > Will the platform ids be organised in a similar way to the
platform
ids
> > > we've discussed before for organisation of native code [1]?
> > >
> >
> > The actual string used to identify a particular platform can be
whatever
> > we want it to be, just so long as we are consistent. So, yes, the
ids
> > mentioned in the referenced email would seem a good starting
point. Do
> > we need to include a 32-bit/64-bit identifier ?
> >
> >
> > > So all tests are, by default, in an all-platforms (or shared)
group.
> > > If a test fails on all Windows platforms, it is marked with
> > > state.broken.windows.
> > > If a test fails on Windows but only on, say, amd hardware,
> > > it is marked state.broken.windows.amd.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Agreed.
> >
> >
> > > Then when you come to run tests on your windows amd machine,
> > > you want to include all tests in the all-platform (shared) group,
> > > os.windows and os.windows.amd, and exclude all tests in
> > > the state.broken, state.broken.windows and
state.broken.windows.amd
> > > groups.
> > >
> > > Does this tally with what you were thinking?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is the idea.
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What does everyone else think ? Does such a scheme sound
reasonable
?
> > >
> > > I think so - it seems to cover our current requirements. Thanks
for
> > > coming up with this!
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be great to
> > prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing
modules,
> > ideally something that contains tests that are platform-specific.
>
>
> Hello George, how about doing a trial on NIO module?
>
> So far as I know, there are several platform dependent tests in NIO
module.
> :)
>
> The assert statements are commented out in these tests, with "FIXME"
mark.
>
> Furthurmore, I also find some platform dependent behaviours of
FileChannel.
> If TestNG is applied on NIO, I will supplement new tests for
FileChannel
and
> fix the bug of source code.
>
> What's your opnion? Any suggestions/comments?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> > George
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Oliver
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for reading this far.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> George
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> George Harley wrote:
> > >>> 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
> > >>> 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]
> --
> Andrew Zhang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]