Hmmm, didn't reopen the JIRA, should I? Or will it just magically get into Michael's queue?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > <<By the way, why does LuceneTestCaseJ4 extend TestWatchman and also a > instance field extends that class?>> > No good reason, I plead confusion when figuring out how to use it. I've > attached a patch to Lucene 2037 that removes the LuceneTestCaseJ4 extending > TestWatchman. > > <<I do not understand the whole magic behind, this is totally confusing to > me – annotating a field that is never used in code by an annotation is > stupid and looks totally incorrect (I mean the field holding the > TestWatchman-subclass).>> > > Well, this is to provide the same functionality as LuceneTestCase. I'm > reaching a bit here since I haven't been in that code lately, but... > > LocalizedTestCase called runBare in LuceneTestCase which reported the seed > value if an exception was thrown. I couldn't find a good way to access > runBare or analogs in Junit4, but the interceptor pattern worked as well. > The interceptor is called by the Junit framework on test events, so there > aren't references to it in the Lucene test code. There are other places that > call runBare, so I assumed that if anyone wanted to use Junit4 with those > classes it would be a good thing to allow. > > I think the interceptor pattern is an elegant way to "do something" at > discrete points in the test run, although it is a bit opaque. > > Most of this was put in when I was trying to move LocalizedTestCase to the > Junit4 world. We didn't do that, but this still needs to be kept if we want > LuceneTestCaseJ4 to be a drop-in replacement for LuceneTestCase. > > <<< - This is another thing why I am against the migration of our already > proven tests.>>> > > If you'll recall the discussion at the time, neither am I. I do believe, > though, that if anyone wants to change a test class to use Junit4 it's a > good thing to have something that'll drop in without surprises, which is > what I was trying for. > > Erick >
