Just a comment: David is right in supporting the XP line of thought: if you separate source from test, you end up with caring about the source, but not maintaining the associated tests. We at infor even use static !inner! classes for writing (J)unit tests. This way source and test ARE THE SAME FILE and this forces the developers (okay, we have also other means to force them by UML patterns, build scripts, etc.) to have both testing and implementation in mind. Furthermore, static inner tests can not only do blackbox testing, but have also insight into the private members)! After compilation, the inner tests are immediately run from the build directory !before! building the jars. Since the inner tests classes depend on their outer classes, but not vice versa, they can be afterwards simply left out of the jars without corrupting the runtime. Best, CGJ -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Micheal J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Februar 2001 09:33 An: jBoss Developer Betreff: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Writing tests It may be nitpicking but I would suggest that we keep the source tree and the test code tree separate. Im my setup for instance, I have a 'src' directory tree and a 'test' directory tree. The structure of the 'test' directory tree is identical to the 'src' tree. In each sub-directory under 'test' are the test suites for the classes in the corresponding directory under 'src'. Micheal > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Jencks > Sent: 08 February 2001 04:32 > To: jBoss Developer > Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Writing tests > > > Hi, > > I've been wondering about this myself, I've tried xunit style > testing (UNIT > testing, not what's in jbosstest) and am amazed at the good effects on my > code and clarity of thinking. What I like to do is put a test > directory in > every directory for the junit test cases/suites, and figure out an > appropriate way to compile enough to run the tests. This way I can find > the tests for each class...otherwise I might write the test but > never find > it again. I'd like to propose we try this, and change the main ant build > script to exclude anything in a test subdirectory. I would like to try > setting this up for myself but won't be able to for at least a week. > > jbosstest is great, but they are not unit tests-- at least the > ones I run. > I think that fine grained unit tests can be a very useful form of > communication between the original developer of a feature and the > associated unit tests and anyone who comes later and wonders what it does > or wants to change it. FOr me, way better than lots of email. > > Hope you like xunit testing as much as I do!! > > David Jencks > > > On 2001.02.07 02:39:34 -0500 Toby Allsopp wrote: > > Hi, all. > > > > I want to write some tests. This is unusual for me, but for some reason > > I do. > > I > > However, I can't really make any sense of jbosstest. Is there some > > pattern? How do I figure out where the test should go? Is there some > > documentation telling me what each group of tests is actually testing? > > > > What I want to test is the enlistment (is that a word) of > resources that > > are held onto by a bean across different transactions. I know that this > > is not yet implemented, but I want to try this whole "write the test > > first" thing that XP talks about. > > > > Does anyone have any insight into where might be appropriate for such a > > test? cts? testbean? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Toby. > > > > P.S. If you've written some of the stuff in jbosstest that's confusing > > me, please don't think I'm flaming you - anything at all is great! > > > > > > > > > >
