-dain
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:00 PM, SPam wrote:
Dain, your are right its a good approach to test EJB tier to have test run
inside the container.
Jim, There are interesting things in JBoss source, and there is also a
demoniac Junit extensions called ServerTestCase which uses as a custom test
runner a simple stateless (remote) EJB which runs your test case inside the
container and can be call like a standard junit test case ie thru jndi. You
still write only one classe for your TestCase, which will be both the test
case caller thru the JVM running your tests and the test itself called in
the TX of the stateless remote EJB.
(mmh, not that clear, but if u look in the internal details of JUnit, you'll
see how this approach is demoniac)
The distributed ServerTestCase is for weblogic (6), but very easy to adapt
for JBoss or any app server you want.
http://www.junit.org/news/extension/j2ee/index.htm#ServerTestCase
I just think you have to be carefull with TestSuite and setUp() tearDown()
usages.
S.Pam
"Dain Sundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Jim,
How do you think we test JBoss? Take a look at the CMP tests in the
testsuite. We have an addon to JUnit that can deploy and undeploy
applications. Also we have a tool that can run the tests on the server
side like (I wrote this to test local interfaces), but does not require
a servlet tier.
-dain
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 02:23 PM, Jim Crossley wrote:
These are good points, and I appreciate yours and others' prompt
replies. However, the solutions presented so far seem to force me to
complicate my object model to facilitate testing.
I agree that an app that is difficult to test probably suffers from
poor design, but web apps by their very nature are difficult to test.
The app I'm currently working on is very CRUD-ish; it does simple
read/write maintenance on a bunch of related objects. I don't want
the web tier to access the Entity beans directly -- this would violate
the transactional requirements -- so they go through a Session Facade.
Creating additional POJO's through which the session beans interact
with the entities only adds an unnecessary layer of complexity IMHO.
The app is currently implemented using OJB, and I'm interested in
refactoring it to use CMP EJB's, which IMHO are much easier to create
and maintain (with Xdoclet, of course) than OJB.
The big benefit of using OJB, however, is that a user can easily test
the entire app from end-to-end without deploying or even interacting
with an external resource. This is possible with Hypersonic's
in-memory database. It got me thinking that an in-memory EJB
container would be just as cool.
JBoss is architected so well that I figured there must be a way to do
it. I'm currently trying to add enough stuff to the minimal
configuration to support the deployment of EJB's, and then I'll see if
it's not possible to invoke that configuration from the setup of my
JUnit test runner.
Does anyone else think this is possible or even worth pursuing?
-- Jim
Demyanovich, Craig - Apogent wrote:
Jim,
I currently do not unit test either Entity or Session Beans. Entity
Beans
are trivial to write, and I trust that the application server will
persist
them as advertised. To unit test Session Beans would require that
they be
deployed. Since deployment complicates unit testing and complicated
or
difficult unit tests suggest that the design could be done
differently/better, I design Session Beans to be controllers of a
number of
collaborating objects. These objects are simply business objects that
encode the business logic of the system. Since they are plain Java
classes,
I can unit test them very easily.
Consider a message-driven bean. As I generally design them, MDBs
receive a
message, hand it to a parser, hand the results of parsing to other
objects
that do something with the message contents, hand the results of that
work
to a communictator, which knows how to send the final results where
they
need to go. So, I don't test any part of the MDB; rather, I test the
various collaborating business objects. If I'm confident that they
all
behave as expected, I'm confident that they will also do so when they
interact via one another's interface.
Hope that helps,
Craig
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
http://hpc.devchannel.org/
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
