Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/19/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Richard Liang wrote:
>
>> Although the spec does not require the round-trip of applyPattern and
>> toPattern, we still want to get one *certain* pattern through
toPattern.
>> Now the problem is the returned pattern is locale-dependent. I'm
>> uncertain about the reason to remove the assertion:
>> 1) Because the behavior is not required by spec, or
>> 2) Because the behavior is locale-dependent
>>
>
> It would seem that rather than forcing the locale to be en_US to make
> the test assertions valid, you could work with the default locale and
> guard any assertions that are locale-specific. It would seem a
shame to
> loose the diversity of testing on multiple locale machines if the
tests
> always force everyone to look like an American (horror! ;-) )
>
> I would expect the fix therefore to be something like, if locale is
> en_US go ahead and assert more round-tripping code, otherwise can't
test
> it as the spec allows variances.
>
>
If a test case passes in all locales, could we think that the behavior
tested by the test case is locale-independent? We still have to think
about how to test locale-dependent behavior. For example,
java.util.Locale.getDisplayName() and java.lang.String.toUpperCase(). To
verify both the code logic and locale data, shall we have some tests
like ABC_en_US_Test, ABC_en_UK_Test, and ABC_ru_RU_Test?
I still confuse what we want to test, the logic or the data? I think
most (if not all) i18n related methods actually have same single
executable with multiple resource bundles, i.e., the single executable
should be locale-independent, the different return value is due to the
resource data difference. I think at least for now, we should pay our
attention to logic of single executable, and leave the data verification
to the i18n libraries' author, say, ICU, they have much more knowledge
and authority (at least than me) on this area.
If we can get agree on the above, so the i18n related test cases
organization are easier to judge: the logic is locale-independent, so
ideally the tests should be locale-independent, but we have some
exceptional cases, say, the en_UK in MessageFormat case, so we cannot
make our tests rely on the default locale, then we just specify one
locale(en_US) to the tests, and supplement some exceptional case when we
find some. i.e., I don't think we need ABC_en_US_Test, or so.
Comments?
Hi Richard,
For getDisplayName, getDisplayLanguage() and methods like so, which are
locale-dependent, I suggest we write implementation tests for them.
The test
may look like:
1. get default locale
2. get i18n string from ResourceBundle directly
3. get i18n string by locale-dependent method
4. assertEquals
If we write test cases like this, these tests are probably
locale-independent, because: the executable is probably single. I don't
think we should have many "locale-dependent" methods, we just have many
methods with "locale-dependent" data.
Sounds reasonable?
Any comments? Thank you!
Best regards,
Richard
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
Paulex Yang
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]
