As long as I have the ability to package my tests
wherever I want, I don't really care much whether the
classes are literally in the same directory or a
parallel one. However, I am quite interested in
having a standard (and limited) set of source
directories that everyone obeys; otherwise a master
build script is much less practical.
--- "Waldhoff, Rodney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > What if you want to build only the production
> classes ?
>
> If you only want the non-test .class files, then use
> "ant dist" in my build
> scripts. That'll give you a jar of the production
> classes only, although it
> will compile everything.
>
> It's not clear to me why one would want to compile
> the production classes
> but not the *unit* test classes, (checking that the
> unit tests compile and
> run on most builds is part of the point of unit
> tests) but it would be
> straightforward to add an ant target that does that.
>
>
> > Maybe we should put the user documentations and
> > examples in that directory too - that may
> encourage
> > people to write more documentations :-)
>
> Not only would I encougage you to put *unit*
> documentation in the same
> directory as the source, I'd encourage you to put in
> in the same file. It's
> called JavaDoc. ;-)
>
> This is my point exactly. We place *unit*
> documentation in the source files
> themselves. Why? Because it's easier to keep them
> synchronized that way,
> it's easier to find them that way, it's easier to
> see what's covered and
> what's not that way, etc. I'm suggesting the same
> is true for the *unit*
> tests--tests of individual methods and classes.
>
> > a) Creates a dependency on JUnit ( or whatever
> testing
> > framework is used for that tests
>
> This is absolutely valid, I guess that bothers me
> less than it does you.
>
> > b) It's hard to compile the code without the
> > test cases
>
> Yes. By design this "encourages" you to compile the
> test cases when you
> compile anything else. I see that as a feature, but
> I understand where you
> might not.
>
> > ( I understand you want to build them togheter,
> > but you can't force everyone to do what you
> > think is right ).
>
> Well, if I put them all in the same source tree, I
> guess I *can* force
> everyone to do what I think is right. (I'm joking,
> mostly.)
>
> > c) What happen if people use different testing
> > framework and tools (please don't tell me JUnit is
> the
> > only "real" thing ) ? Do we place all the test
> code in
> > the same dir ?
>
> Yes, I suppose that is what I'm suggesting: In
> general all *unit* tests,
> regardless of the framework, go into the same
> directory as the source it is
> testing. I think it is unlikely that a single
> component will use two
> distinct unit testing frameworks at the same time,
> but I don't see it as a
> major problem if it did. It's one more dependency,
> but at least I know all
> my tests work.
>
>
> As a said before, I'm not sure it matters much. As
> long as I can run "ant
> test" (or something like that) to run all of the
> unit tests, I don't care a
> whole lot where they're located.
>
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
